~ United States ~{l.A:Jll Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Coconino, Prescott and Tonto National Forests

Southwestern Region, April 1981

VERDE RIVER Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Environmental Impact Statement

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Verde River Wild and Scenic River Study Report Yavapai and Gila Counties, Arizona

Responsible Federal Agency:

Responsible Official:

For further information: contact:

Abstract:

USDA-Forest Service

Coconino National Forest 2323 E. Greenlaw Lane Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

Prescott National Forest P. 0. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Tonto National Forest P. O. Box 29070 Phoenix, Arizona 85038

R. Max Peterson, Chief Forest Service South Building 12th and Independence Ave. S.W. Washinoton, D. C. 20013

H. Dewayne Morgan, Forest Planner Prescott National Forest P. 0. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302 (602/445-1762)

This Environmental Impact Statement discusses the Verde River's eligibility for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The statement describes four alternative actions and the estimated effects of each. Alternative B, a proposal to include 39.5 miles of the river into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System has been identified as the preferred alternative. The rationale for selecting this action is also discussed.

i

SUMMARY REPOKT

I. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: The study found that the 78 miles of the Verde River designated for study in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, is eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. However, the proposed action would designate only 39.5 miles of the river. A 38.5 mile section of the river between the Forest boundary near Paulden and Clarkdale is excluded from the proposal. Of the 39.5 miles of river affected by the action, 22 miles meet scenic river criteria, and the remaining 17.5 miles are suited for a wild river classification.

Tl1is recommendation, if implemented, would provide statutory protec­tion of a highly scenic free-flowing river. The action would also provide opportunities for increasing the diversity of dispersed recreation use.

The primary issue emerging from public involvement was, "should the Verde River and its immediate environment (study corridor), or portions thereof, be designated as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System or should present management direction continue." This question was raised during each public meeting as well as by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act itself. It is the primary issue addressed in this study.

In addition, several other issues and concerns were identified by the public and are addressed in this study. These issues include:

What is the effect of wild and scenic river designation on oppor­tunities for future development, i.e., diversions, recreation sites, roads, and power transmission line corridors?

If the river and its environment are designated, what would be the extent, provisions. and consequences of easements acquired on private land?

Are there possible conflicts between needs for more water storage and a designation which would maintain a free-flowing river?

What effect would a wild and scenic river designation have on habitat management for the bald eagle?

What effect would a wild and scenic river designation have on geothermal leasing, exploration, and development?

No other Federal actions are discussed in this Environmental Impact Statement.

ii

II. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERtD: During the study process, five alternatives were considered. However, one alternative which added 10.5 miles to the south end of the designated study area near Table Mountain, was eliminated during the evaluation process.

A. Alternative A. (No Designation - No Action) Under this alterna­tive, none of the 78 miles of eligible river would be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The present manage­ment policies and programs of the three National Forests involved would continue. Future management of the National Forest lands would be directed and controlled by the Land and Resource Manage­ment Plans developed for the respective Forests in accordance Hith the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The constraints on existing or future uses of the private lands would be minimal.

B. Alternative B. (Designation of the segment of the river from Seasley Flats to the vicinity of Table Mountain.) This alter­native would designate a total of 39.5 miles of eligible river. The segment from 8easley Flats to the confluence of Fossil Creek, ~2 miles, would be classified scenic. The remaining segment, 17.5 miles, would be classified wild. So1ne access routes would be improved and parking and sanitation facilities would be provided as needed. Emphasis would be placed on protecting the natural values of the river area. Zoning ordinances or the ac­quisition of a scenic easement may Je used to control develop­ment of the included private lands. This alternative was selected as tt1e preferred alternative (See map on page iv).

C. Alternative C. (Designation of all eligible river segments except fora-5. 5 mile section of the river at the upstream end of the study segment.) The alternative would designate all eligible seg111ents except for a 5.5 mile section and would total 72.5 miles. The upstream 33 mile segment would be classified recreational and the remainder would be classified as in Al­ternative B. A portion of the included 737 acres of private land would be subject to land use controls in the form of zoning ordinances, scenic easements or combinations of both. Management and development of the river area would be the same as in Alternative B.

o. Alternative IJ. (Designation of all eligible seyrnents.) Under this alternative all eligible segments would be designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. A total of 78 miles of the Verde River would be protected and managed under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative is essentially the same as Alternative C, except an additional 5.5 miles of recreational river would be designated and about 763 acres more of private lands could be subject to land use controls.

i; i

I

L

Paulden

\

Scenic

~ s mi. I 8 km.

Preferred Alternative

iv

Verde

Cr.

("""•••

Flats

Area

M tn.

Bridge

III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Environmental impacts associated with-the- propose-dacti on--i nc 1 ude -f)rotect ion of the free-flowing character of 39.5 miles of the Verde River as well as protection of scenic, fish and wildlife, historic and cultural values. The oppor­tunities for future water impoundments and hydroelectric power developments that would have direct and adverse effects on the desiq­nated segments would be foregone.

Improved access routes with associated parking and sanitation facilities would impose minor modification on the natural environ­ment. Increased public use, in the qeneral area of the improve­ments, would cause minor soil compaction and vegetative alterations. Recreation use is expected to increase as a result of designation.

Zoning ordinances or a scenic easement would restrict the development potential on one parcel of private land within the designated river segment.

IV. CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS: Opportunities for public participation in the study process were provided by five open houses and a workshop session. In addition, contacts were made with Federal and State agency representatives, state-wide user groups, County Board of Super­visors, range permittees, landowners, civic organizations, and other interested individuals. Preliminary alternatives were made available for public review through publication of a newspaper tabloid.

Over eight hundred copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were distributed to the following agencies and organizations, and comments were received by those indicated with an asterisk.

Federal Agencies

Geological Survey Water Resources Council National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Service

* Department of Energy *USDA - Soil Conservation Service * Environmental Protection Agency * Dept. of the Army-Corps of Engineers * USDI - Office of the ~ecretary

Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management

* The Secretary of Commerce Federal Highway Administration

* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission * USDI - Water and Power Resources Service *Dept. of Housing and Urban Development

Heritage Conserv. and Recreation Service *USDA - Rural Electrification Administ.

Congressional Delegates

Senator Barry Goldwater Senator Dennis DeConcini Representative Eldon Rudd

*Gila County Board of Supervisors

Representative John Rhodes * Representative Bob Stump

Representative Morris Udall

County

Yavapai County Board of Supervisors

v

* NACOG, Region III * State Mine Inspector * Office of Arid Land Studies * State Land Department * Department of Health Services *Center for Public Affairs

Outdoor Recreation Coard. Commission * Agriculture & Horticulture Dept. * Department of Transportation

*Prescott Historical Society * OEPAD - Hathaway *Arizona Natural Heritage Program *Department of Game and Fish

Department of Parks and Recreation Arizona Department of Public Safety Office of Economic Planning and Develop.

*Central Az. Association of Governments

City Councils

* Prescott City Council

Corporations

* Atlantic Richfield Company * Dashney, Steel & Jensen, Incorporated

* Phelps Dodge Corporation * Arizona Public Service Company

Arizona State Legislators

Senator Leo Corbit Congressman Frank Kelley Congressm~n Jerry Everall

Senator Boyd Tenney Congressman John Hays

Organizations

*Arizona Wildlife Federation * Coconino Sportsmen * Prescott Audubon Society * Tucson Audubon Society * The Prescott Junior Women's Club * The Izaak Walton League of America * KOKOPELI (Adventures in Learning)

Yavapai-Apache Tribe Arizona Public Service

* SAEC-Southern Az. Environ. Council Northern AZ. Council of Govern.

* Earth First {National Wilderness Preservation Organization)

* Arizona Resource Council * National Audubon Society * The Wildlife Society *Salt River Project * Four Corners Wilderness Workshop *Arizonans for Wild & Scenic Rivers * Northern Audubon Society

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe * AWWW-Arizonans for Quality Environment *Verde Nat. Resource Conservation District * Coconino Nat. Res. Conservation District

Individuals

Comments were received from 332 individuals. See listing of individuals by preferred alternative in Appendix F of this document.

vi

L__

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary • • • • • Table of Contents •

I. INTRODUCTION

A. B. c. o.

Background Purpose of Location • Issues and

and Nature of Decision •• Report ••••.••••

Concerns.

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. B. c. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N.

Legal Setting •• General Setting. Socio-Economic Setting ••••• Climate ••.•.••• Historic and Cultural. Vegetation •• Transportation • • . Recreation ••••• Water. • . • • . • Fish and Wildlife ••••••• Range. • Minerals Air Quality •• Landownership, Restrictions, and Uses.

III. EVALUATION CRITERIA

i vii

1 2 2 3

7 7 7

10 10

• 11 • • 12

17 19 22 27 27 28 28

A. Eligibility Criteria, Analysis, and Determination. . 31 B. Classification Criteria and Determination. • 35 C. Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives • • • • • • • • 37

IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

A. Alternative Formulation Process. • • • • • • • • • . 39 B. Alternative Descriptions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40 C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration • 44

vji

V. EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION

A. Alternative Effects. • . . • . • . • • . • . • . . 45 B. Economic, Environmental, and Social Effects Display ... 49 c. Summary of Effects • • • • . . . . . • . . • . . S5 D. Relationships Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term

Productivity • . . • . . • . • • • • • • . . . . . . • . 60 E. Summary of Probable Adverse Environmental Effects

Which Cannot Be Avoided .•••••..•.•..••.• 61 F. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .• 61

VI. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

A. Evaluation •••.••..•..•••.••.•..•. 63

VII. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

A. B. c.

Preferred Alternative .••. Reasons for Non-selection •..••. Management Plan ••••.••

VIII. CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS

A. Summary of Public Involvement. 8. Summary of Comments Received .

IX. APPENDIX

• 67 • 68

• • • 69

•. 71 . 72

A. State and Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species. • • • . • . • • . • . ••• 80

B. Threatened and Endangered Plants • • . • 84

c. Status of Flood Control and Hydroelectric Generating Facility Proposals Along the Verde River . 85

o. Central Arizona Project (CAP). • • 89

E. List of Preparers ••••.... . ~l

F. Public Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact State-ment and Forest Service Response • . • • • • ~3

G. Index. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154

vi ii

l

PAULDEN ,r' ~

CLARKDALE ~ ....... COTTONWOOD

,;r

PRESCOTT

Forest

(

10 20 30 Miles

Figure 1 Location Map

ix

I • INTRODUCTION

A. Bacls_~und and Nature of Decision

In 1968, Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542) and r2directed the water policy of this nation. Congress declared that:

" •.•. the established national policy of dam and other construc­tion at appropriate sections of rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free­flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital National conservation purposes."

Over the past several years public interest has increased to pro­tect the remaining free-flowing segments of several rivers in Arizona, as well as throughout the United States. With the passage of the National Parks and Recreation Act (P.L. 95-625), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was amended by adding 17 rivers for study. Among these was the Verde River.

"The rnai n stem from the Prescott National Forest boundary near Paulden to the vicinity of Table Mountain, approximately 14 miles above Horseshoe Reservoir, except for the segment not included in the National Forest between Clarkdale and Camp Verde, north segment."

Because the phrase "except for the segment not included in the National Forest between Clarkdale and Camp Verde, north segment" required some clarification, Staff from the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment in the House of Representatives pro­vided the following information:

The legislative intent was to exclude from the study that segment of river from where it leaves National Forest lands north of Clarkdale, Section 33, Tl7N, R3E, downstream to where it again enters National Forest land near the south­west corner of Section 26, Tl3N, R5E.

In addition to the designated study segment, the section of river between Table Mountain and the junction of Tangle Creek in Section 35, T9N, R6E, was also evaluated for possible in­clusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The decision to add the Tangle Creek section to the study was made following a recommendation by the Central Arizona Water Control Study, that the dam site at the Verde River/Tangle Creek conflu­ence be dropped because of unsuitable geology.

-1-

B. £.urpos~~!__Report_

This report, prepared by the USDA, Forest Service, Prescott, Coconino, and Tonto National Forests, discusses the process used to analyze and evaluate characteristics of the study segment of the Verde River to determine whether it qualifies for designation as a Wild and Scenic River as defined in the 1968 Act. The public had an opportunity to comment on a pre­liminary decision published in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). A final recommendation based on the DEIS and subsequent public comment is documented in this Environ­mental Impact Statement. Congress directed that a report on the final recommendation be submitted to them not later than April 1981. At that point, Congress may accept or modify the recommendation when considering the Verde River for possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

In addition to documenting the preferred alternative, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires the report to show the following:

Location (pg. 2); characteristics which do or do not make the area a worthy addition to the system (pg. 31); reason­ably foreseeable potential uses of resources enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if designated (pg. 60); adminis­tering Federal agency if designated (pg. 67); cost sharing by State and local government agencies (pg. 67); and the estimated cost to the United States of acquiring easements, lands, and of administering the area if designated (pg. 51)."

C. Location

The Verde River originates in Big Chino Valley north of Prescott, Arizona, and is a major tributary of the Salt River, which flows into the Gila River.

The study area is divided into two river segments -- A and B. Segment A extends east from the National Forest boundary near Paulden, Arizona, to the north edge of the private lands in Section 33, Tl7N, R3E. Segment B extends south from the east edge of the private lands in Section 27, Tl3N, R5E to the junction with Tangle Creek in Section 35, T9N, R6E. The towns of Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde are located along the river between the two study segments. See maps on pages 14 and 15.

-2-

For the purpose of Uw study, boundaries were established to average about 1/4 mile on both sides of the river. With the exception of approximately 1,500 acres of private lands the study area encompasses National Forest lands. The river flows through Yavapai and Gila Counties.

D. Issues and Concerns

The primary issue emerging from public involvement is, "Should the Verde River and its immediate environment (study corridor), or portions thereof, be designated as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System or should present management di­rection continue." This question was raised during each public meeting as well as by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act itself.

In addition, other issues and concerns, identified by the public, are addressed in this study. The issues include:

What effect would the wild and scenic river designation have on opportunities for future development, i.e., diver­sions, recreation sites, roads, and power transmission line corridors?

If the river and its environment (corridor) are designated, what would be the extent, provisions, and consequences of easements acquired on private land?

Are there possible conflicts between needs for more water storage and a designation which would maintain a free-fl owing river?

What effect would a wild and scenic river designation have on habitat management for the bald eagle?

What effect would a wild and scenic river designation have on geothermal leasing, exploration, and development?

The concerns were:

What is the effect of wild and scenic river designation on rights and responsibilities regarding withdrawals for reclamation purposes?

Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 prevents the Federal Power Commission, now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, from licensing any project directly affecting the river, and also prevents other Federal agencies frrnn making construction loans or grants,

-3-

or issuing licenses for water resources projects.

What is the effect of designation on mineral prospecting, exp 1 oration, and deve 1 opment?

All prospecting, mining operations and other activities on mining claims which have not been perfected 1/ prior to addiny the river to the system shall be subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe to effectuate the purpose of the Wild and Scenic River Act. Also, subject to valid existing rights, the minerals in Federal lands whicr1 are part of the system and constitute the bed or bank or are situated within one-quarter rnile of the bank of any river segment clas­sified wild are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from operation of the mineral leasing laws.

Would the access for maintenance of stream gauging stations and development of additional gauges for an improved flood warning system be affected by designation?

Unobtrusive gauging stations and their continued mainte­nance are allowed under a wild and scenic river designa­tion if there is no significant adverse effect on the natural character of the area.

If private landownership is retained, would road access through the classified area be allowed?

Rights of reasonable access to private land would not be denied. Road access through a designated area to private land would be allowed to the extent it does not signifi­cantly impact the natural character of the area.

1/ "Subject to valid existing rights, the perfection of or issuance of a patent to any mining claim affecting lands within the system shall confer or convey a right or title only to the mineral deposits, and such rights only to the use of the surface and the surface resources as are reasonably required to carry on prospecting or mining operations and are consistent with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture." (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act P.L. 90-542).

-4-

What effect will designation have on grazing of domestic livestock and develo~ment and maintenance of range im­provements?

Livestock grazing would continue to the extent it does not detract from the values for which the river was desig­nated and classified under provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Unobtrusive fences and other range improvements would be permitted if there is no significant adverse effect on the natural character of the area. Existing means of access for maintenance of improvements would be allowed to continue as long as they do not destroy the values for which the river was designated.

What is the effect on upstream communities and water users particularly as it relates to maintaining water quality and quantity standards of a designated river?

This concern was expressed by residents of upstrearn com­munities 1 ocated outside of the study area. The Act specifies that the prescribed water quality standards will be maintained. However, this does not relieve the State of their water quality monitoring and enforcement responsibilities. Designation would add emphasis to maintaining the prescribed quantity of water required to maintain a free-flowing river.

What effect would designation have on existing manmade improvements?

Man-made irnprovements were inventoried during the study process, and their impacts on eligibility and classifica­tion were evaluated. Classification would not result in elimination of existing improvements.

-5-

r0James Cowlin, 1980

General view of the Verde River near Table Mountain-Tonto National Forest

-6-

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Legal Setting

The Verde River flows through private and public lands. The public lands were set aside from the public domain as reserves prior to the Transfer Act of 1905. During the years that followed, there were several name changes, acreage transfers, etc., that resulted in the current boundaries of the Prescott, Cocdnino, and Tonto National Forests. Except for approximately 1500 acres of private lands contained in eight separate parcels along the river, the study area is managed by the U.S. Depart­ment of Agriculture, Forest Service. Since the Forest Service administers all the public lands, it has been designated as lead agency in conducting the study. Other Federal and State governmental agencies, as well as utility companies, statewide user groups, organizations and private individuals were consulted during the study process.

B. General Setting

The Verde River Study Area is located within the boundaries of the Prescott, Coconino, and Tonto National Forests. Management questions are currently being addressed within the framework of multiple-use guides established for the Chino Valley, Verde, Sedona, Beaver Creek, Payson, and Cave Creek Ranger Districts. General management has been directed toward mainte­nance of natural conditions along the river corridor.

Because of the rugged terrain and lack of products sought by early settlers, there has been little development or use within the study area. However, there has been and is now, grazing of cattle along the river and its tributary canyons. Some mineral exploration has occurred in the past. However, little evidence of mining activity is evident today. Fire occurrence is low, and recreation use is limited to camping, picnicking, fishing, hunting, and occasional river running during peak flow periods.

C. Socio-Economic Settin~

The local users of the river are from the c~nmunities and towns of Bridgeport, Middle Verde, McGuireville, Jerome, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, Cornville, and Camp Verde. In general, these towns developed as service centers for ranching and mining areas surrounding the Verde Valley. The fertile soils adjacent to the river near the town of Camp Verde provided ample agricultural opportunities.

-7-

The profile of the valley today has changed considerably. It serves the tourism trade in Northern Arizona with nearby Jerome State Historical Park, Dead Horse State Park, Fort Verde State Park, Tuzigoot and Montezuma Castle National Monu­ments, National Forests and other scenic attractions, luring thousands of visitors year1y. Retai1 and who1esa1e trade is perhaps U1e largest single economic sector in the valley.

Besides attracting tourists, the valley has become a haven for retirees. The mild year-round c1imate is the major attractor. It is estimated that 20 percent of the Verde Valley's popula­tion is over 65 years of age. .1/

There are a few small ranches in the vicinity of the river that depend on National Forest lands for yearlong graziny. The river often provides the only reliable source of water during drought periods and plays an important part in the overall range management program.

The local economy is growing at a low to moderate rate. Mining activities are restricted to production of cement by the Phoenix Cement Company in Clarkdale and other srna 11 amounts of "deposited" type minerals - gypsum, dolomite, halite, etc. If Phelps-Dodge Corporation elects to open-pit mine the low grade copper deposits beneath the town of Jerome, there will be a rapid social and economic change in the Verde Valley.

The local public interest in National Forest lands, as well as the river, is quite high because the Forest provides a sub­stantial part of their outdoor recreational needs. Generally, the Verde valley residents favor a full range of uses with a minimum of constraints, rather than land classification, which may preclude some existing or potential land uses.

The larger surrounding towns of Prescott, Chino Valley, Ashfork, Williams, Sedona, and Flagstaff, are not as dependent on the river for recreation as the local population. However, it does provide a variety when compared to their predominantly "high country" recreation use opportunities. The river also is an attraction for the residents of the Phoenix metropolitan areas and out-of-state visitors. This use is expected to increase if the river is designated in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

-----·------l/ Arizona Office of Economic Planning & Development - Phoenix, Arizona

-8-

'0Jarnes Cowlin, 1980

Verde River at the confluence of East Verde River-Tonto National Forest

-9-

o. Cli1nate

The climate along the Verde River is characterized by hot summers, mild winters, moderate precipitation and abundant sunshine. Weather records have been maintained at Childs, Arizona, since 1915. The hottest temperature recorded at this site was l18°F in 1958. Normally, July is the hottest month, with the average daily maximum being 102°F. During January, temperatures sink to their lowest, with the averaye daily minimum being 33°F. The coldest temperature ever recorded was 2°F in 1937.

Precipitation averages approximately 16 inches per year (Sellers & Hill, 1974). Almost half is received between November and March as gentle rains, with much of the remainder falling during the summer thunderstorm period.

E. Cultural and Historical Background

The Verde River has long been known for its wealth of pre­historic and historic sites and played an important role in the development of Arizona. Six major divisions of this history can be made.

Paleo-Indian Period (12,000 B.C. _!Q__8,00Q_B.~ People of this era were pri111arily hunters who follovwed the movements of big game herds. Although no remains of this period have been verified, sites may be buried beneath alluvial and colluvial deposits.

Archaic Period {_§_,000 t).C. to A.O. 1) As the climate changed, the ga111e herds died out, and people becallle more knowledgeable of other food resources, more emphasis was placed on the gathering of wild plant foods. Possible camp sites of this period are known and consist primarily of isolated projectile points and scatters of flaked stone.

Agriculturalists (A.O. 1 to 1425) Most prehistoric sites in the area date to this period. These valley inhabitants were known as the Southern Sinagua. Although probably developing from the earlier Archaic tradition, their culture was in­fluenced by nearby groups. Earliest sites are pit house villages in the uplands, suggesting a hunting and gathering food base supplemented by farming areas along the Mogollon Rim. Later, pueblos in the open as well as cliff dwellings came into use, culminating in the large pueblos such as Tuzigoot and Montezuma's Castle.

-10-

Historic Hunters and Gatherers (A.O. 1425 to 1865} When the first Spanish explorers entered the Verde Valley in 1583, they found it occupied by the Northeastern Yavapai Indians. The Yavapai lifestyle was similar to that of the Archaic Period, being dependent upon a seasonal cycle of hunting and wild plant food harvesting. Some irrigation farming was also practiced.

The Pioneer Settlers (1865-1875) Farmers first entered the Valley from Prescott in 1865. Hostilities with the Yavapai Indians developed as increasing numbers of settlers moved into the Valley, disrupting the traditional Yavapai lifestyle by restricting access to food collecting areas. Fort Verde was established as a military base to control these conflicts and later became a reservation. The Yavapai Indians were moved out of the area in 1875 but returned to Fort Verde after 1898.

Miners and the Railroads (1875 to Present) In 1876, copper mines near Jerome that had been used in prehistoric times were rediscovered. In 1886, the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad was completed into Prescott. Ore could then be hauled by mule train from Jerome to Prescott, causing an economic boom in the Valley. When copper prices fell in 1891, the cost of hauling ore by mule became prol1ibitive. Consequently, a narrow gauge railroad from Jerome to Chino Valley was built and used until tile smelter at Jerome was moved to a new site on the Verde River. This became the company town of Clarkdale. The Verde Valley Railroad was constructed in 1911 to connect Clarkdale with the Ash Fork-Prescott Railroad and is still used today.

F. Vegetation

The Verde River, as it meanders through the rugged terrain, creates a deciduous riparian forest and woodland subformation. The adjacent landscape beyond the river's influence consists of two distinct vegetative subformations. The pinyon-juniper woodland type dominates the river segment north of Clarkdale and gradually gives away to the Sonoran desert type with large inclusions of semi-desert grasslands in the segment south of Camp Verde.

The dominant pl ant species arrangement outside the riparian zone is a shrub overstory with a grass understory. Pi nyon and Juniper are often intermixed. The principal shrubby species are mesquite, catclaw, shrub oak, prickly pear, and creosote bush.

-11-

The dominant qrasses include sand dropseed, three-awn species, galleta, blue grama, and sideoats qrama.

The Verde River is virtually unsurveyed for threatened and endangered plant species. However, it is suspected that nine plants, that are listed or proposed for listing as threat­ened or endangered, exist in the study segments. See list in Appendix B of this document.

The riparian vegetation along the river is strongly influenced by physical features such as geology, channel width, and stream gradient which influence the existence of alluvial benches. Other factors which also affect the riparian vegetation are grazing and water level fluctuations due to seasonal flooding and withdrawals. Extrapolation of Forest Service research 2/ indicates that less than 20 percent of the river's length from the Forest boundary near Paulden, Arizona, to the Tangle Creek junction near Horseshoe Reservoir, is capable of producing quality riparian vegetation. The most productive sites are contained in the river segment between Beasley Flats and Tangle Creek.

As a general rule, the riparian areas are dominated hy hard­woods and shrubs. The principal species are cottonwood, willow, ash, Arizona oak, hackberry, seepwillow, burrobrush, baccharis, desert willow, mesquite, salt cedar, and occasional Arizona sycamore. The herbaceous qround cover is primarily annual grasses and forbs with a high percentage of bermuda qrass.

For the most part, the lands within the study area are rocky, steep and classified as not suitable for production of commer­cially valuable wood products. The minor amounts of Pinyon­Juniper available for fuelwood is used by the general public for recreation purposes.

G. Transportation

The study segments are not accessible by paved Federal, State, or County highways. However, US Highways 89, Alt. 89, and State Highway 79, provide access to county and Forest developed roads that serve the river. See river segment location maps on pages 14 and 15.

Access to both study segments of the river is limited. The two major problems are public access through private lands and sub­standard roads. Vehicle users can be separated into two major groups. The larger group consists of the general public seeking a recreation experience, and the second group is made up of range permittees, private landowners, and utility operators.

'!:_/ Action Program for Resolution of Livestock - Riparian Conflicts on the Salt River and Verde River, July 5, 1979, US Forest Service.

-12-

1. 10_ver j_egment A _ficcess

There are five low standard dirt access roads in this segment. They are Morgan Ranch Road (FS #638), Bear Siding Road (FS #182), Verde Ranch Road (FS #635), Perkinsville Road (FS #354) and the Packard private lands access road (FS #131). These roads all pass through µri vate 1 ands within the study corridor. The Fore st Service does not have rights-of-way or easements granting the general public access.

The Verde Ranch Road and Perkinsville Road can be driven by passenger cars. The other three roads usually require a high clearance vehicle. In addition to the listed major roads, there are several unconstructed trails and cross-country routes, that provide access to the rim above the river. Most of these require 4-wheel drive vehicles.

The Verde Valley Railroad enters the study corridor two miles west of Perkinsville. It remains in the corridor for 20 miles until it climbs out of the river bottom, between the Packard private lands and Clarkdale. The railroad was constructed in 1911 to connect Clarkdale with the main Ashfork-Prescott 1 i ne. It does not carry passengers and generally makes one trip a day transporting cement from the Phoenix Cement Company in Clarkdale.

2. River Segment B Access

The north µortion of this segment is accessible by six primitive dirt roads. They are Beasley Flats Road (FS #334), the Falls-Sycamore Creek Road (FS #500), Brown Springs Road (FS #574), Childs Access Road (FS #502), Powerline Road (FS #lb), and 4-wheel Drive Road (FS #57). The roads are constructed to various standards, requiring high clearance and 4-wheel drive vehicles during wet conditions. Horseback and foot access to this section of the river is provided by Forest trails 41, 66, 67, and the powerline trail extending north from Childs.

The south section of this segment, from the junction of Fossil Creek to the boundary of the study area near Tangle Creek, is accessible by Forest Roads Nos. 269 and 479. Both roads join the river at the Sheep Bridge near the junction of Tangle Creek. Road No. 269 is constructed to the highest standard and provides primary access. Forest Trails 41, 11 and 20 provide the only other de­veloped access to this portion of the river.

-13-

RIVER SEGMENT A

R 2 W

7 N

I --t-r---

1 I I I I I

N I I

.J I I

LEGEND

Ro ad 635

T r a i I 5 I -----------

Railroad ~ .... ___. _ _..___..,_ ............ __

Powerline

Gasline ----G--

Land net

Private land

Forest boundary

14

To I 1 7

I I

YAVAPAI I I ----+-

T 9 1/2 N

' ) I I I

RIVER SEGMENT

COUNTY

I I I I

-----+---1

I I

15

B

R 7 E

T 13 N

The Verde Valley Railroad was constructed in 1911 to connect Clarkdale with the Ashfork - Prescott Railroad and is still used today - Prescott National Forest.

-16-

H. Recreation

Since access to most of the Verde River within the study area is limited, recreation use is lower than on some other rivers in Arizona. The absence of developed recreation sites coupled with limited access, concentrates the recreation use around areas served by the few improved roads. Most of these roads were constructed to provide access to the private land parcels located along the river. This creates conflicts between the recreation users and private landowners.

The majority of the picnicking and camping occurs in river seg­ment A, north of Clarkdale. The alluvial flats adjacent to the river provide the water, cover, and firewood necessary for these activities.

There are several areas in both river segments that have good fishing potential. Catfish is the most sought after species but other fish, such as largemouth and smallmouth bass, blue­gill, and other sunfish are also harvested. Local residents visiting their favorite fishing hole account for most of the fishing use.

In general, hunting does not occur in the study area as fre­quently as in the more accessible surrounding area. Upland birds and ducks are the most popular game animals.

The river segment north of Clarkdale has limited potential for extended float trips. The average flow rate is less than 200 cfs and limits floating to innertubes, rafts, and occasionally short canoe trips.

The river segment south of Camp Verde has good potential for floating during the peak March-April flow period, but is often hazardous because of rapids and tree obstacles. Docu­mented float trips 3/ indicate that when the flow is below 800 cfs there is trouble with sand and gravel bars and above 3,000 cfs the river is turbulent and dangerous. The average flow rate is less than 500 cfs.

There are a few popular swimming holes within the study area. The most popular area is the Verde Hot Springs. The springs are surrounded by the remains of a twenty-room, two-story lodge and spa that operated under a Forest Service special-use permit. Although the resort building was destroyed by fire in 1962 and the special-use permit terminated, the hot springs still draw large crowds.

'}_/ W. G. Weinel, U.S. Forest Service, 1973 and 1975.

-17-

vJames Cowlin, 1SJ80

Fishing along the Verde River west of Perkinsville private lands -Prescott National Forest

-18-

The recent RARE II 4/ process identified five roadless areas that extend into the study area. The Muldoon, Hackberry, and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness contiguous areas were recornmended for resource management other than wilderness. The Arnold :\lesa and Mazatza 1 Wilderness contiguous areas were recommended for further planning and will remain essentially undeveloped until Forest Land and Resource Management Plans 'ii are com-p 1 et ed.

The Arnold Mesa roadless area begins approximately .5 miles south of Brown Springs below Camp Verde and extends 4 miles down river to the vicinity of Cold Water Creek. It is located entirely on the west side of the river. The Mazatzal Wilder­ness contiguous area begins approximately .5 miles south of Childs and includes both sides of the river down to the junc­tion of Tangle Creek for a distance of 20 miles. See 111ap on page 15.

I. Water

The Verde River originates outside the study area in Big Chino Valley northwest of Prescott. From its origin, it flows gener­ally south, 125 miles through State, private, and National Forest lands. The river empties into Horseshoe Reservoir and Bartlett Lake, where it is stored for use downstream in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The major tributaries are Sycamore Creek (north of Clarkdale), Oak Creek, Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, Fossil Creek, and the East Verde River.

Water quality samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey above and below Camp Verde do not represent a complete testing program. However, they do indicate the \~ater inside the study area meets the standards set by the State of Arizona for recre­ation, wildlife, fisheries and agricultural uses.§/

4/ The Roadless Area Review and Evaluation process (RARE II) is a comprehensive process, instituted in June 1977, by the Forest Service to identify roadless areas and undeveloped land areas in the National Forest System and to determine their general uses for both wilderness and other resource management and deve 1 opment.

5/ Forest Management Plan required by Section 6 of tr1e National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588).

§_/ U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Reports.

-19-

Spring river running of the Verde River at 4,000 cubic feet per second -Tonto National Forest

-20-

The U.S. Geological Survey maintains four gauging stations on the Verde River. The maximum, minimum, and average discharges are as fol lows:

Station

Paul den

Clarkdale

BeloH Camp Verde

Tangle Creek

Years

1963 to Present

1915 to 1921 & 1965 to Present

1971 to Present

1945 to Present

TABLE 1

Maximum (cfs)* 8,080

50,600

41,000

91,400

Minimum Tcfs)*

15

55

13

61

* (cfs) - cubic feet per second.

Average -(cfS}*

35.7

187

378

489

The maximum flows usually occur during spring and winter months. The minimum flows are recorded during dry summer months.

There are no diversions, dams or other waterway modifications in river segment B. However segment A, north of Clarkdale contains three sets of diversions. The uppermost of the diver­sions lies in Section 31, Tl8N, R2E (Perkinsville private lands). The structure consists of a windrow of rock and earth extending into the stream channel, forcing water into the irrigation system by gravity flow. The second diversion is similar in construction to the first and is located in Section 12, T12N, R2E (Alvarez private lands). It provides water for agricultural purposes and serves a pasture permitted by a special-use permit on National Forest lands. The third diver­sion is located in Tl7N, R3E, Section 33, just inside the study area. The water, which is used for irrigation, is diverted out of the river into a ditch which leads to a private land parcel. These diversions do not affect the free-flowing char­acter of the river.

That portion of the river not designated for study between Clarkdale and Camp Verde (Verde Valley) contains, or is subject to, numerous agricultural and domestic diversions. Water is drawn from the river by direct diversion and wells. It is partially consumed in agriculture and domestic use, yet a

-21-

portion of what is diverted is also returned to the river but is delayed, by routing through irrigation systems.

The water rights on the Verde River are in the process of ad­judication. Until adjudication is complete, no positive state­ment can be made about 1vater rights. See Appendices C and D.

Northern Arizona communities, including Prescott, Pine, Payson, and Camp Verde and other Verde Valley crnnmunities hav~ been tentatively granted a share of Colorado River water when the Central Arizona Water Project (CAP) is completed into Arizona. Salt River Project (SRP) currently claims all unappropriated Verde River water. Some of these comrnunit i es have expressed an interest in exchanging their CAP allocation to SRP for Verde River water. This could result in water being removed directly from the Verde River or its tributaries. However, since the CAP project will not be completed until approximately 1987, it is impossible to determine what affect this exchange of water rights wi 11 riave on the river.

J. Fish and Wildlife

The riparian community and the river itself provide nicnes for over 60 percent of the vertebrates that inhabit the three National Forests involved in this study. For example, 255 of the 383 vertebrates known to exist on the Prescott National Forest can be found along the river and its immediate environs. Many of these animals reproduce and complete their entire life cycles in the same community. Ot~1ers use the river for repro­duction and/or feeding, but seasonally. Still others use the unique riparian zone as a highway for travel from summer to winter areas and return.

The river provides valuable winter waterfow1 habitat. The low elevation prornotes ice-free conditions which encourage use by migratory birds during January and February. Also, the year­round climate is such that a few waterfowl take up yearlong residence.

Little is known about the furbearer population. The species known to occur throughout the river influence zone are beaver, coyote, bobcat, weasel, skunk, and raccoon. River otters, listed by the State as endangered, are native to the system, but have disappeared. The Arizona Game & Fish Department is currently considering the feasibility of re-establishing the otter in the study area.

-22-

The primary game species inhabiting the area, but are not dependent on the riparian habitat, are mule deer, white-tail deer, Javelina, morning dove, quail, and cottontail rabbits. Occasionally, a mountain lion or black bear will be observed passing through the area.

The water qua 1 i ty for river segment A north of Cl arkda 1 e rates high. A li1nited sample, taken near the Packard Place by Forest Service personnel in 1974, indicated that dissolved oxygen was at or close to saturation and water temperatures were well within the range to sustain a warm water fisheries. Dissolved solids, a good indicator of pollution, was well within the range necessary for supporting a good mixed fish population. Bottom fauna collected during the study also indicated good water quality.

River segment B south of Camp Verde is expected to be somewhat lower in quality than segment A, due to urban development. The towns of Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde are situated on the banks of the river and are suspected of contributing pollutants into the system. The extent of the pollution problem is not known at this time. However, a special task force has been assigned by the Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) under the 208 Water Wuality Program to study and propose solutions to existing and projected futur~ quality problems.

There are 25 species of fish known or suspected to occur in the study area. Of U1ese, 14 species are big enough to be caught on a hook and line. The most popular game fish are catfish, bass, bluegill and other sunfish. Suckers and carp are sought by some people but usually are caught incidental to fishing for other species.

The entire Verde River and one-quarter mile on both sides has been identified 7/ as essential habitat for bald eagles. The bald eagle is listed as an endangered species on both the State and Federal lists. Bald eagles nesting north of Arizona use the river for wintering, and a local population of bald eagles use it for nesting and rearing young during the spring and summer.

l! Action Program for Resolution of Livestock - Riparian Conflicts on the Salt River and Verde River, July 5, 1979, US Forest Service.

-23-

The Verde River provid~s nestiny sites and foraging areas for the bald eagle.

-24-

There are only 13 known active nesting territories in Arizona and New Mexico. The nesting birds tend to require the river environs more than the wintering birds. Observations and studies indicate the southern segment of the Verde River is used for nesting, and the total length is used for winter foraging. During the winter period, the eagles have been observed as far as eight miles from the river canyon.

Many wildlife observers are of the opinion that regeneration of cottonwood and other riparian hardwood trees along the Verde River essentially ceased with the advent of unrestricted cattle grazing about a century ago. The existing trees are nearing the end of their natural life span and attrition by death, floods, etc., is occurring at an alarming rate. This situation concerns many wildlife managers and observers who feel that the bald eagles prefer trees to cliff sites for nesting. The same managers and observers are quick to point out that cliff sites are unsuitable alternatives to trees because of reduced fledgling survival. Trees are also impor­tant as strea111side foraging perches for capture of fish, the primary food source for the eagles.

The Forest Service has been aware of the importance of the ri­parian habitat along the Verde and other rivers for some time. However, only in comparatively recent times has the probable adverse effect on the bald eagle been of concern. In 1978, the Maricopa Audubon Society contacted the Forest Service and expressed their concern that the eagle habitat was not being adequately protected and managed. As a result, the Forest Service developed a position statement and proposed to proceed with a short-range program of direct habitat improvement in areas crucial to the nesting pairs accompanied by a longer term program of range management designed to improve the entire riparian resource on the Verde River. The short-range program consists of excluding livestock in selected areas, fencing of key areas and planting cottonwood cuttings. The Audubon Society has endorsed both the short and long-range programs.

In addition to the bald eagle and river otter, the Verde River and its immediate environs provide suitable habitat for 16 other threatened, endangered or special interest 8/ wildlife and fish species. See species list in Appendix-A.

~/ Special interest includes wildlife species listed by the State of Arizona that are in danger of being eliminated, may be in jeopardy in the near future, or because of limited distribution within the State.

-25-

<0Jarnes Cowlin, 1980

The Verde River is an imµortant source of water for livestock.

-26-

K. Range

Since the introduction of grazing, the Verde River has served as a primary watering and foraging source. As a result, the River and the adjacent bench lands have been areas of livestock concentration. This use, coupled with the physical nature of the river corridor (climatic and edaphic), has somewhat changed the ecology of the area.

Parts of 18 National Forest grazing allotments occur within the study area. Administration limitations, resulting from financial and/or personnel constraints, have produced management variations between the allotments. The overall net result is that the grazing resource is not being managed to its potential; thus adversely impacting other resources, uses, and activities.

Range improvements consist of allotment boundary and pasture division fences, water gaps 9/, corrals, tractor constructed cattle trails, and salt grounds. A range headquarters is main­tained on National Forest lands north of Childs. These improve­ments are permitted by a special-use permit and consist of a bunkhouse, barn, and corral. They are used in management of the Skeleton Ridge grazing allotment.

Along river segment A, north of Clarkdale, there are 17 water gaps located on both Forest and private lands. They are seldom all in place at the same time and present a minor hazard to river runners.

The Forest Service is currently implementing a program to resolve an apparent conflict between livestock grazing and the riparian habitat along the Verde River. The alternatives range from complete removal of livestock to partial exclusion of grazing by fencing key areas and scheduled utilization under an approved management plan.

L. Minerals

l"lost of the Federal lands located in the study corridor between Mormon Pocket (Sec. 3, T17N, R2E) and the junction of Tangle Creek are withdrawn from mineral entry by Reclamation With­drawals. There are no known mineral production sites within the river section between Mannon Pocket and the west Prescott National Forest boundary, which is open to mineral entry.

2_/ Fences across the river that break away during periods of high v1ater flows.

-27-

Prospecting has shmm a very limited amount of base metals within or adjacent to the study area. Numerous non-meta 11 i c discoveries have been made within three mil es of the river, however, only one quarry is located inside the study area and it is presently inactive.

The area frrnn Camp Verde to Bear Siding forms the southern boundary of 1 ands deter1ni ned as prospectively valuable for oil and yas. The rest of the study area is not considered valuable for oil and gas.

Verde Hot Springs currently produces surface hot water, and U.S. Geological Survey reports show that water as hot as 120°C could exist at depths of 6,000 feet. These reports indicate the Verde Hot Springs area has very little potential for electri­cal power generation, but the area has potential for direct use of the geotherrna l resource. 1.Q/

The air quality over the Verde kiver is good 11/. The laryest single pollutant in the general area is dust v1hich is largely the result of wind erosion frrnn relatively undisturbed areas and vehicular travel along the low standard dirt roads.

The large 111etropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona, is located approxi 1nate ly 40 rilil es south and west of the extreme south end of the study corridor. The prevailing southwest winds bring sorne srnog into the genera 1 vi ci ni ty of the river. However, seldom can it be visually detected within the study area.

Future expansion of mining activities in the Jerome area would increase the probability of contaminants reaching the study area. Also, improvement of the unpaved roads adjacent to the river may result in increased traffic and related dust.

N. Landownership, Restrictions, and Uses

The Verde River flows through Yavapai and Gila Counties. All the private lands within the study area are located in Yavapai County.

l.QI State of Arizona, Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology.

ll_I Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978.

TABLE la

SUMMARY OF OWNERSHIP, RESTRICTIONS, AND USES

1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

Ri_ver S~qment_ ~

Lenqth of Seqment Gross Acres in Study Area

Acres Under Forest Service Administration Acres in Private Ownership

Number of Privately Owned Parcels 11 Number of Private Landowners -Land Uses in Study Area

Gas Pipeline 21 Railroad 21 -Power Transmission Lines 21 Water Diversions 21 Special Use Pastures 21 Storaqe Yard 21 -Water Gauqinq stations 3/ Reclamation Withdrawal 41 Water Gaps (Fences) £._I -

River Segment~ 'ii

Lenqth of Seqment Gross Acres in Study Area

Acres Under National Forest Administration Acres in Private Ownership

Number of Privately Owned Parcels Number of Private Landowners Land Uses in Study Area

Power Transmission Lines 21 Range Headquarters 21 -Water Gauging Station 61 Reclamation Withdrawal­Childs Power Plant !_I

38. 5 mil es 12,320 acres 10,846 acres 1,474 acres

94 11

1 crossing 20 mil es

4 3 2 1 2 1

17

50.0 miles 16,000 acres 15,974 acres

26 acres 1 1

3 1 1

Total Length 1

]._/ These parcels vary in size from a large 446 acre tract down to sma 11 1 ot s.

£.I Authorized by special use permit or easement.

]_I Both gauging stations have access roads.

!ii The east 112 of Tl7N, R2E and the west 112 of Tl7N, R3E have been withdrawn for waterpower development purposes.

'ii Includes 10.5 mile river section between Sheep Bridge and Table Mtn.

!j_I This water gauging station is maintained by helicopter.

!_I The powerhouse and appurtenant facilities are located within the study area. The water is diverted out of Fossil Creek, a tributary of the Verde River. No water is diverted out of the Verde River for power production.

-29-

Verde Valley Railroad crosses tr1e Verde River on Uie east side of Perkinsville private lands - Prescott National Forest.

Ranch headquarters located in study segment A of the Verde River -Prescott National Forest

-30-

III. EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. Eligibility Criteria and Analysis and Determination

The first step in the study process is to determine if the river is eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In order to make this determination it is necessary to understand Section l(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542) which states that:

"It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and w i l d l i f e , h i st o r i c , cu lt u r al , o r ot her s i mil a r val u es , shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their imr11ediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations."

To evaluate whether the river is outstandingly remarkable, eligibility criteria were written to reflect the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as it applies to streams in Arizona below the Mogollon Rim, an area which includes the Salt, San Francisco, and Verde Rivers. These criteria are definitions of the terms "outstandingly remarkable" scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, and historic and cultural values.

Because this evaluation can be highly subjective, the eval­uation criteria were reviewed and modified at a public work­shop. The accepted criteria are as fo 11 ows: ·

1. Scenic Value:

Landfonn - terrain highly varied and distinctive, may in­clude vistas with sharp peaks and/or sharply serrated ridges or isolated peaks with distinctive color contrasts, deep canyons or distinctive gorges with vertical or near vertical walls and/or unusual configuration or color.

Vegetation - highly varied distinctive with strongly defined patterns formed by combinations of vegetative communities, dramatic displays of seasonal color; speci-1nen stands of vegetation Vlhich may create unusual forms, colors or textures. Outstanding examples of threatened and endangered plants or native riparian habitat are present.

Water - Natural waterforms consist of rivers and streams of a perennial nature (consistent flow), river or stream

-31-

character varies from still pools or slow moving water to waterfalls, cascades and rapids and may have unusual channel configuration.

2. Recreational Value: Variety of uses is hi9h or numerous; river is accessible to wide variety users, quality of recreation is high and use is commensurate with values; significance of the recreational opportunity extends at least statewide and may be rt:!gi ona l or national.

3. Geologic Value: Formations and structures carved by -wind and· water erasion are unusua 1 and worthy of study and observation, they are unusually old or show many periods and variety or unusual geological features, e.g., fossils, faults, etc., and either rocks are rare or uncom­mon, or exposed minerals art: unusual or distinctive, or outcrops are colorful and of different fan~ or shapes.

4. Fish and Wildlife Values: Fish populations are self­sustaining and abundant, distinctive or highly visible; threatened and/or endangered sµecies are self-supporting, isolated species are found away from their main geographic ranges, wildlife and fish co111rnunit i es st10w unique associ a­ti ons, symbiosis, competition or unusual food chains, abundance and/or variety of wildlife and/or fish is unusual for the area.

5. Historic and Cultural Values: Sites are easily viewed or interpreted, are geographically important; show distinct characteristics of time period, construction or workman­ship, are associated with significant events in the nation's, state or local history or pre-history.

In addition to the eligibility criteria written in response to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, there are four criteria con­tained in the "Guidelines for Evaluating Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Areas---" written by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Interior in 1970. They are:

1. Free-Flowing River: The river must be in a free-flowing, natura 1 condition.

2. Meaningful Experience Opportunity: The river must be long enough to provide a meaningful experience for river users.

3. Water Volume: The river should contain sufficient water v6Twne to permit, during the recreation season, full enjoyrnent of water-n~lated outdoor recreation activities generally associated with comparable rivers.

-32-

4. Water Qua l_J__ty :_ Water quality should meet the criteria for fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife as defined in the chapter on Aesthetics - General Criteria of Water Quality Criteria, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, April l, 1968.

The study team, when applyinq the first five eligibility criteria definitions, considered that if one or more elements of each criteria definition applied, the river then had outstandingly remarkable attributes for that particular criteria. The appli­cation of these criteria to the study segments of the Verde River led to the determination that the two segments are eliqible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The two segments meet three of the eligibility criteria for "outstandingly remarkable" values and also meets the four additional criteria. Table 2 is an analysis of the criteria as they apply to the Verde River Study Segments.

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF CRITERIA SATISFACTION

Criteria

Scenic Value Recreational Value Geologic Value Fish and Wildlife Values Historic and Cultural Values Free-flowing River Meaningful Experience Opportunity Water Volume Water Quality

Criteria Satisfied

Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Scenic Value: The Verde River does possess "outstandingly remark­able" scenic values. Evaluation of scenic qualities using the Forest Service Visual Management System 1/ concluded that both segments of the river and visual surroundings classified as Variety Class A. This means the scenic qualities of landform, vegetation, and waterform within the study area are extremely high, with great variety and distinction. This free-flowing perennial stream provides a unique situation in the typical southwestern landscape.

l/ The Visual Management System contains the management direction and techniques for the protection and enhancement of visual char­acteristics. Documents are available for review at the Prescott, Coconino, and Tonto National Forests supervisors 1 offices.

-33-

Recreational Value: Although the Verde River provides an excellent opportunity for diverse recreation use and many people feel it does provide a quality recreation experience, it does not meet the "outstandingly remarkable" recreational value criteria. The recreational opportunities are many, however, none are considered outstanding or unique. The current use is not high, and at the present time, the majority of the river is not readily accessible to a variety of users.

Geologic Value:_ Altnough the geology of the river does contribute significantly to the outstanding scenery of the Verde River and presents an interesting geologic display, it is not considered "outstandingly remarkable." The geologic characteristics are quite common to the area and do not display unique or unusual geologic features or provide evidence of geologic processes which are unique or unusual in character.

Fish and Wildlife Values: "Outstandingly remarkable" fish and wildlife values result because of the high quality habitat for threatened and endangered species and the variety of resident and visitor wildlife species. The presence or suspected presence of 21 threatened, endangered or special interest wildlife species is sufficient to support the unique status of the study corridor. The entire Verde River has been identified as essential habitat for the bald eagle, an endangered species. The lower river segment, south of Camp Verde, is currently recognized as critical nesting territory.

Historic and Cultural Values: Only limited surveys have been conducted along the Verde River, however, i nforrnat ion gai n.ed frorn the r<::!corded sites shows the area to contain "outstandingly remark­able" historic and cultural values. Many of the sites are considered to be geographically significant and also represent an important era in the development of the Southvtest. Further investigation is expected to produce many sites of National Register significance which will probably give insight into changing land use strategies and their relationship to changing social organization through ti me.

Free-Flowing River: The minor existing diversions and associated impoundments within the study area do not affect the free-flowing character of the River.

Meaningful Experience Opportunity: The study segment pro vi des a variety of meaningful experiences as identified in the discussions of scenery, recreation, and fish and wildlife.

Water Volume: The average annual flow varies from 35.7 cubic feet per second (cfs) near Paulden to 489 cfs near Tan~le Creek. The lowest recorded flows range from 15 cfs near Paulden to 61 cfs at Tangle Creek. Although there is a significant drop in

-34-

flow during the driest periods, the flow is considered sufficient to permit full enj oyrnent of water-related outdoor recreation act iv­it i es.

Water Quality: Water quality data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey lilal cate the \vaters inside the study area meet the standards set by the State of Arizona for aquatic and wildlife habitat acd full body contact recreation use.

B. Classification Criteria and Determination

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides three classes of rivers in the National System and defines them as follows:

1. Wild river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primi­tive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of pri rnit i ve America.

2. Scenic river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still laryely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

3. Recreational river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundrnent or diversion in the past.

These are the criteria by which the study segments of the Verde River were judged. The following analysis indicates how classi­fication for each section of the river was determined.

1. Segment A - This segment of the river contains three water diversions, a gas line crossing, three powerline crossings, 17 water gaps with associated range fences, 20 miles of railroad tracks, two stream gauging stations, and seven parcels of private land. The private lands have been developed as follows:

Morgan Ranch: Undeveloped except for minor livestock hand­ling facilities.

Verde Ranch, Ranch headquarters and livestock handling facilities. A portion of this private land section has been subdivided into more than 75 residential lots. The lots currently remain under one ownership.

Bear Siding: Undeveloped, used for dispersed recreation.

-35-

Perkinsville: Ranch headquarters with livestock handlinq facilities, irrigated pastures and several buildinqs.

Alvarez Property: Year-round residence and is used for farming and raisinq livestock.

Gold Tooth Claim: Subdivided into four parcels with one dwelling under construction and one cabin in place.

Packard Place: Non-producing property with caretaker facilities.

The river bed is accessible by five Forest [developed] roads and numerous undeveloped cross-country routes and trails. A primitive four-wheel drive road enters the study corridor near the Verde Ranch and provides access down the river to Duff Springs, a distance of approximately 5 miles. Forest Road No. 354 and the railroad cross the river by separate bridges near the Perkinsville private lands.

After evaluating the combined impacts of the shoreline im­provements and numerous access routes, the study team determined that this section of the river does not meet the criteria for wild or scenic classification. However, it could be classified as recreation.

2. Segment B - This segment of the river is totally free of impoundments and diversions. It is divided into two sections based on ease of access and presence of improve­ments.

a. North Section: This section extends from Beasley Flats to the junction of Fossil Creek, a distance of 22 miles. The study corridor contains two powerline crossings, ranch headquarters, one stream gauging station, and the Childs Power Generating Plant with its support facilities. A power transmission line extends up the river from the generating station for 5 miles before it leaves the study corridor.

Access is provided by six Forest [developed] roads and four trails. There are also a few four-wheel drive cross-country routes that provide access above the riverbed. The roads are not highly visible from the river and do not detract from the natural setting.

-The Brown Springs private lands are located less than one-sixteenth mile from the river. Improvements con­sist of a modern home, guest quarters, outbuildings, hydroelectric system, and an underground irrigation system.

-36-

The study team compared the development in this sec­tion to the development in segment A and determined that a more primitive situation existed. The presence of access roads, the Childs Power Plant, and the Brown Springs Ranch preclude wild classification but do not prevent classification of the section as scenic.

b. South Section: This river section extends south from the junction of Fossil Creek to the Sheep Bridge near Tangle Creek Junction, a distance of 28 rniles. It is completely undeveloped and accessible only by foot and horseback. Forest Roads Nos. 269 and 479 provide access to the trail head located near the Sheep Sridge. The study team made the determination that this section of the river meets the criteria for wild classification.

C. Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives

These criteria are used to select a preferred alternative for future management of the study segment of the Verde River. They were identified from legislation, regulations, and public and management input relating to this Wild and Scenic Rivers Study.

1. Preserve free-flowing conditions and outstandingly re­markable characteristics of the river and its immediate environment.

Source: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Section l(b).

Comment: The Act identified a national policy of river preservation that is intended to complement a national policy of river development.

2. Conform to availability and suitability of those lands involved.

Source: National Forest System Land and Resource Manage­ment Planning Regulations.

Comment: Lands must not only be available for particular resource management, but must also be well suited, i.e., the intended management activities must be appropriate to apply, without unacceptable adverse environmental effects.

3. Minimize impacts on private land rights.

Source: Public meetings.

-37-

Comment: This concern was expressed with particular refer­rence to the incidence of trespass and vandalism on private lands. Also, private landowners indicated a concern regard­ing possible loss of their ownership rights through the scenic easement process. ll

4. Display a high degree of compatibility with the desire and recommendations of State and local governments.

Source: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Section 5c.

Comment: Local governments bear a larsie portion of the ef­fects, both positive and negative, of Federal designation and management, therefore their input should receive special consideration.

5. Increase the supply of outdoor recreation opportunities and services through Forest Service programs that emphasize dis­persed recreation.

Source: A Recommended Renewable Resources Program, Final Environmental Statement, 1976.

Comment: After evaluating five alternative goals for Forest Service outdoor recreation program, this one was selected.

6. Provide a mix of goods and services responsive to local area economic growtt1.

Source: Special local problem from local open houses.

Comment: The growth of local population due to energy devel­opment will cause higher demands on Forest goods and services.

7. Ensure protection and enhancement of habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species.

Source: Forest Service Resource Managers.

Comment: By law and through mutual agreement with the Audubon Society, the Forest Service will take necessary measures to protect and enhance riverine habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species.

ll Under the terms of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, the Secretary of Agriculture is "authorized to acquire lands and interest in lands within the authorized boundaries of any component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System ••• " The options available for acquiring such interest in private lands are to purchase on a willing buyer-seller basis or purchase of development rights through a scenic easement. In either case, an appraised value will have to be established with negotiations being based upon this value.

-38-

IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

A. Alternative Formulation Process

Because decisions made in this study affect water development and uses and other related land uses, the Water Resources Council's Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Re­lated Land Resources were considered in the formulation and evaluation of alternatives. See page 49.

In brief, the Principles and Standards require formulation of plans serving co-equal national objectives of National Economic Development (NED) and Environmental Quality (EQ). Once estab­lished, the alternatives are analyzed and their effects are displayed in an accounting matrix that considers regional economics and social well-being, as well as environmental quality and national economics.

A no action alternative is also formulated to provide a baseline for comparison of effects of all alternatives. No action does not mean that planned management is absent; to the contrary, it is the deliberate continuation of the current management and existing plans into the future. Under no action, the river would not be designated as a wild and scenic river compo­nent since that would be a departure from the current management. Similarly, no major investments for economic benefit would be made unless they are currently planned.

Two conditions underlie the formulation of a NED alternative. First, there must be a need for economically measurable goods and services of a resource and, second, the planning agencies must be able to implement actions that satisfy the needs.

The affected environment section of this statement describes the social and economic character of the region that includes the study segments of the Verde River. Retirement, farming, ranching, and tourism are the mainstays of the local economy. The national economy, as characterized by a NED alternative, could be enhanced by increased or more efficient production of several commodities. Minerals, livestock grazing, water for irrigation. or hydroelectric power, and recreation at developed sites could all be considered as logical components of a NED alternative.

The current management direction aimed toward protection of riparian and bald eagle habitat, as well as the need to maintain grazing within the capacity of the range, indicates that in­creases in livestock grazing are not possible. While there is some mineral exploration and extraction activity in the region, there is none going on in the study area nor has there been any indications of deposits of economic value •. Developed

-39-

recreation needs are increasing, but topography, restricted access and lack of suitable sites precludes large scale devel­opments adjacent to the river.

Although several potential water developrnent projects have been considered by various entities, none have economic or other char­acteristics favorable enough for firm proJect proposal at this time. The Cliff Darn site, currently being considered by Central Arizona Water Contro 1 Study ( CAWCS), is 1 ocated outside the river study area. See Appendices C and D.

From this analysis, the study team concluded that no viable NED alternative exists. The no-action alternative serves the NED objective best by keeping developrnent options open.

Several Environmental Quality alternatives are possible. They present different degrees of protection of the free-flowing nature of the study segments of the Verde River and protection and enhancement of the outstandingly remarkable scenic, fish and wildlife, historic and cultural values.

B. Alternative Descriptions

ALTERNATIVE A - Alternative A is a continuation of present management. The river, its immediate en vi rans, and current land uses would remain essentially unchanged. This alternative includes obtaining legal public access through private lands to the river or construction of short sections of road when easements and rights-of-way cannot be obtained on a willing buyer-seller basis.

Under this alternative, future management of the National Forest lands would be directed and controlled under National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans scheduled for cornple­tion in 1982 and environmental assessrnents of individual pro­posals. Management decisions would rest with the responsible Forest Supervisors and District Rangers in accordance with current delegated authority.

Tt1is alternative would allow dcveloprnent alon~ the river and would place minimal constraints on existing uses and activities, including the planned cattle exclosures for protection of the riparian habitat. The existing power project withdrawals would remain in effect. The temporary mineral withdrawal imposed by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would be lifted.

-40-

t-Paulden -"'.--

\ No Designation ~

i~::..i:

ALTERNATIVE B - Under this alternative, river segment B 1/ would be designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The 22 mile section from Beasley Flats to the junction of Fossil Creek would be clas­sified scenic and the 17.5 mile section from Fossil Creek

Forest Bdry. ~

land

a a' P3

Clarkdale t/ Cottonwood

Flats

to the vicinity of Table Mountain would be classified wild. The designated segment contains approximately 12,640 acres of public and private lands. Both classified sections would be managed to enhance the scenic, fish and wildlife, historic and cultural values. Dispersed recre­ation use would.be stressed in management.

N Table Mtn.

t I 5 ml. I

8 km.

River segment A would not be designated under this alternative. Manage­ment of this 38.5 mile river segment between the Forest boundary and Clarkdale would be the same as described in Alternative A.

Designation may impose some constraints on the private land parcel located near Brown Springs. The intent is not to change the present private land use, but to prevent future developments that would detract from the values for which the river was designated and classified. The management plan will evaluate the need for scenic easements or county zoning which are desirable but not essential.

Should the river be designated, a detailed study would be made to deter­mine access needs. Roads and trails would be improved or closed as neces­sary. Also, sanitary and parking facilities would be needed at primary access points.

1/ The 10.5 mile river section between Table Mountain and Tangle Creek was excluded from the study during the analysis and evaluation process (See C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration, page 44.) The term "study segment B" from this point forward includes only the river sec­tion between Beasley Flats and Table Mountain.

-41-

ALTERNTIVE C - Under this alternative, river segment B and all but 5.5 miles of se~nent A would be design­nated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The 33 rni 1 e section from the Verde Ranch to Clarkdale would be clas­sified recreation, the 22 mi 1 e section from Beasley Flats to the junction of Fossil Creek would be clas­sified scenic and the 17.5 mile section from Fossil Creek to the vicinity of Table Mountain would be classified wild. The desig­nated segments contain approximately 23,210 acres of public and private lands. The classified sections would be managed to enhance the scenic, fish and wildlife, historic

No Designation r Private land

a a' ~

lark dale /

ottonwood

Wild

N

t I 5 mi. I

8 km.

and cultural values. Dispersed recreation use would be stressed in management.

The 5.5 mile river section between the west Forest boundary and the Verde Ranch would not be designated under this alternative. Management of this section would be the same as described in Alternative A.

There are 737 acres of private lands located along the designated river segments. Designation would i1npose some constraints on future develop­ment of a portion of these lands. The extent of the restrictions and number of acres actually affected would be determined in a study to be con­ducted if the river is designated. The study would also determine access needs including sanitation and parking facilities. Roads and trails would be improved or closed as necessary.

-42-

Flats

ALTERNATIVE D - Under this alternative, river segments A and B would be designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The 38.5 mile section from

land

a a' ~

Clarkdale t/

ottonwood

Verde

I Flats

Scenic

the west Forest boundary to Clarkdale would be classified recreation, the 22 mile sec­tion from Beasley rlats to the junction of Fossil Creek would be classified scenic and the N

Table Mtn.

17.5 mile section from Fossil Creek to the vicinity of Table Mountain would be classified wild. The designated segments contain approximately 24,960 acres of public and private land.

1 s ml. f a km.

This alternative is basically the same as Alternative C, with the addi­tion of 5.5 miles of recreation classified river near the west Forest boundary. Management and development would be the same as described for Alternative C.

There are 763 acres of private lands located along the added 5.5 mile river section. Thjs brings the total private lands that could be affected by designation under this alternative to 1,500 acres.

-43-

c. Alternatives t:liminated FrOiil Further Consicleratiun

In a letter aated August L'.9, 1979, from tne Forest Supervisor, Tom;o i~at1011al Forest tu ttw ProJects ,•\anager, Gur<.:au of Reclama­tion (now the \foter and Pov-1er Resources Service WPRS), the Forest Service indicated its intent to study the Verde f<iver fro1n Table i'lountain downstream to Tangle Creek in conJunccion with the leg­islated study. Res 1Jonse fro111 WPRS dated t.h:ce1nber 3, 1':179, indi­cated th2 Central Arizona Water Control Study (CAWCS) was review-i n':) viable alternatives for needed flood control or µrotection actions on the Verde River. During this Sci11k:: µeriod, the Salt River Project was in the early stages of evaluatin'::J ti1e installa­tion or expansion of hydroelectric generation facilities on the river. They indicated enlargement of Horseshoe Dam was a realistic considera~ion for both flood control and hydroelectric generation. The µroposed enlar'::)e1nent of Horsesr1oe uarn vvould t1ave result2d in a 111axili1u1n reservoir level bet».Jeen an elevation of 2,160 and 2,170 feet. Tr1is would i:11µound the Verde River approxi!llately ei~ht miles above Tangle Creek.

Flooding in tr1e Salt River Valley belovJ the confluence of tt1e Salt and Verde Rivers is a serious problem - a problem higt1lighted by the floods of tne µast tnree years. All involved ayencies and the public agree that sOine sort uf additional flood control actions are needed.

based on i nforrnat ion jJrovi ded by WPR:::i, Sf{P and the need for SOille type of flood control action on the Verde Hiver, the 10.5 .nil2 river section bdween Tabk 111tn. and Tangle Creek was drol)ped fro111 the study. Tne altt:!rnative tnat contained tt1e 10.5 ;iiile river sec­tion was identified as Al~ernative E duriny the i11itial data yattl­erin::i stage. The i111pacts of Alternative E Here not evaluated and presented to the µub 1 i c in trie Oraft t.nvi ron1:1enta l Statement. However, during the analysis and evalua"':ion process, it was de­t1:::rini ned tnat tne river section did 11eet botn the el i gi Di l i ty and classification criteria in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Since tile release of tt1e Draft Environmental lrnµact State1nent in August, 198U, tl1e CAW CS has pub 1 i shed a f actDook. The study has been completed throu9h Stage II, whicr1 eli1ninates tne raisin!:] of Horseshoe lJam as an a 1 ternat i ve. The Cliff lJam site is currently being considered for both flood contra 1 and regulatory storage. Dain safety of Horsest10e ua1n is a 1 so bei ny considered in the study. See CAWCS sum1nary in AiJpendi x C.

As a result of the inforination provided by CA'vJCS, the reasons for drop;:ii ng .the 10. 5 111i 1 e river section between Table Mountain and Tanyle Creek fr~n the study are no longer valid. However, consider­ing that the impacts of designating the river section into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System were not evaluated in the uraft Environ­mental Statement and presented to the public, the river section will not be considered in the Selected Alternative section of this report.

-44-

V. EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION

A. Alternative Effects

The tables in this section display specific comparisons of uses and consequences of each alternative, including costs and social and economic implications. These values for 1978 are also shown to form a basis for comparison.

TABLE 3

COMPARISON OF USES FOR THE ALTERNATIVES IN 1990

Activity 1978

Water Yield l/ 354,300

t~ater Quality NA

Reservoir Construction Opportunities NA

Cattle (AUM) ll 1,190

Minerals 3/ ExploratTon 0 Development 0

Wildlife Habitat !Y 0

Fisheries Habitat 0

Timber Production NA

Roadless Areas 0

NA Not applicable

Alter. A

354,300

0

0

1,190

0 0

0

0

NA

0

Alter. B

354,300

+

1,190

0 0

+

+

NA

0

LEGEND

+ Enhanced opportunities, quantity, quality 0 No effect, no change

Alter. C

354,300

+

1,190

0

+

+

NA

0

Negative effect on opportunities, quantity, quality

Alter. D

354,300

+

1,190

0

+

+

NA

0

_!_/ Data taken from U.S.G.S. water gauginq station located 1.3 miles south of Tangle Creek Junction (Average acre feet/year).

1_! Designation under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act will not effect livestock grazing capacity of the river corridor. Other. manage­ment activities such as protection of bald eagle habitat could effect permitted numbers. An AUM is the equivalent of one cow and calf graz­ing for 30 days.

3/ Oil, gas, hardrock, geothermal. J_J Including riparian habitat.

~45-

TABLE 4

CHANGES IN RECREATION USE IN 1990 BY ALfERNATIVES

Present ]j Alt'2r. A 2/ Alter. B 3/ Alter. c 3/ Alter. D 3/ 19/B RVD 'sll990_±f RVlJ' slBYO- RVD'sll990- ~VD' s/1990-= ----

Picnick-i ng 21 3,200 4,984 5,562 5, 996 6,191

Camping §j 6,000 8,440 9,683 10,047 10,3l6

Water-based Recreation 5,500 7,995 9,573 10,216 10 ,470

Dispersed Motorized Recreation 1, 100 1,595 1,500 200 0

lJispersed i'~onmotor

Recreation 900 1,300 1,615 1,707 1,741

Hunting 2,000 2,407 2,547 2,547 2,547

Non-hunt-i ng Wi Id-life 800 1, 145 1,336 1,459 1,504

Fishing S,700 7,705 9,732 10,101 10,236

TOTAL 2!),200 35' 5 71 41,548 42,273 43,065

ll Recreation use for 1978 was estimated using available data collected from the Forest Service Recreation Information Management System, in­put from Forest Service personnel and other data collected by study team.

]:_I Alternative A use increases are based on average activity increases estimated from the Forest Service Recreation Information Management System.

11

!ii

!ii

Alternatives B, C, and Duse based on Alternative A plus an antici­pated increase resulting from designation and improved access.

RVD is defined as a recreation visitor day (12 hours of recreation activity.)

Picnicking - Picnicking is defined as picnicking in other than dev­eloped picnicking sites.

Camping - Camping is defined as camping in other than developed camp­ing sites.

-46-

Water yield would not be changed under any of the alternatives as there is no opportunity to increase water yield within the study area. Usually, an instream-flov1 claim for the amount of water needed for wild and scenic river purposes would be included in this report. However, it would be impossible to determine an accurate instream-flow claim with the timeframe of this study. The determination of water needs usua-1 ly takes an interdisciplinary team several months, if not years, to complete. It would be inadvisable to specify any instream-flow claims in this docurnent that are not fully defensible. Such data and the methodology used to derive it would undoubtedly set off a debate involving water rights issues.

The Verde River has a built-in safeguard against large upstream uses of water. Most of the river's water is currently being used downstream from the study area for agri cultural, i ndustri a 1, and domestic purposes under ajudicated water rights. Therefore, existing downstream water rights should prevent excessive diver­sion and loss of flow in the study segments.

The completion of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) in 1987, could have an impact on instream-flow of the river. If the communities trrat have been tentatively granted a share of the Colorado River water are permitted to exchange CAP water for Verde River water, it would be diverted from the study segments, thus reducing the fl ow. Should the exchange become a rea 1 i ty, an i ndepth study of the i nstrearn-fl ow needs to maintain the river values will be required under Alternatives B, C, and D.

The required m1n1murn flow would not be evenly distributed. Flow data gathered from 1945 to present indicate that a minimum flow of 61 cfs and a maximum flow of 91,400 cfs can be expected near the Tangle Creek Junction at the extreme southern end of the study area. The past 35 year average flow is 489 cfs.

The existing water quality would be maintained or improved in all alternatives. The State of Arizona has the responsibility to set water quality standards and has designated the Verde River for 11 l3ody Contact". Under this designation, the water quality will not be degraded below its existing condition. The State however, could change or rescind the designation.

Th~ increase in recreation use and possible construction/recon­struction of access roads, parking and sanitdtion facilities is expected to have al! impact on water qua! ity under Alternatives L{, C, and lJ. Sedirn1~ntJtion is expected to increase sligt1tly during µeri ods of construction or reconstruction. Ho•1ever, it would decrect~c below the current level once the ratilities • .Fe constructt~d arid off-roacJ Vt!hicle travel is restricted to chsignated travelways. fncrt~ctsl'.Cl rccrt,atiun usr' dt r-ivt~r

-4 /-

access points, would tend to compact soils and cause minor vegetative modifications. Periodic closing of highly used access points may be necessary for rehabilitation purposes. The net results of designation on water quality is expected to be positive.

Reservoir construction opportunities would remain unchanged under Alternative A and would be eliminated within the desig­nated segments in Alternatives B, C, and D. There is no mer­chantable timber within the study area; therefore, designation would have no effect on timber harvesting. Grazing production would also remain unchanged.

Although no known economic minerals occur, the potential to util­ize minerals within the study area would be reduced under Alter­natives C and lJ. River segment B is currently withdrawn frorn mineral entry by existing Reclamation Withdrawals, so classi­fication under Alternative B would have no etfect. The poten­tial for geothennal development would be reduced under Alternatives B, C, and lJ.

No activities to improve fisheries habitat are proposed in any of the alternatives. Increased recreation use due to obtaining legal public access and designation in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system would perhaps increase pressure on existing fish populations but would have minimal impact on their habitat. The impact on wildlife habitat is expected to remain about the same under all alternatives. However, the opportunities to improve wildlife habitat would increase with Alternatives B, C, and U, as emphasis is given to comply with Section 10 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The projected recreation use increase could have an adverse impact on wildlife populations, making it necessary to impose administrative constraints on the public during critical periods. For example, it may be necessary to impose a closing order restricting public use on segments of the river, during the nesting period of the bald eagle to promote survival of the fledgings.

Motor vehicle use would be restricted to specified roads within designated sections of the river. Therefore, dispersed motor­ized recreation use would decline under Alternatives B, C, and D. Most of the current use is occurring in river segment A between the Verde Ranch and Perkinsville; therefore Alternatives C and D would have the greatest impact.

If the current recreation use trend continues, a 36 percent increase in river use can be expected under Alternative A by 1990. Th.e combined projected user increase due to the current trend and designation ~ould be 60 percent for Alternative B, 67 percent for Alternative C, and 71 percent for Alternative D. Designating the Verde River as a component of the National

-48-

Wild and Scenic Kivers System would have little effect on big or small game hunting. The increase in use would result primarily from picnicking, camping, water-based recreation and fishing activities. The two roadless areas designated for further planning by the KARE II process would not be affected by any of the alternatives.

~. Economic, Environment~ and Social Effects Uisplays

Including a river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System may have significant environmental, social, and economic effects. Chapter IV described use of guidelines known as the Principles and Standards for Planning and Related Land Resources-[Federal Register 38;174;111, Section 19, 1973). - As outlined -in the Principles and Standards •.. , the study will include alternative plans for future management of the study area. Generally, this planning should serve two equal objectives of national economic development (NED) and en vi ronmenta l quality, (EQ). The effects of achieving these objectives are displayed in tables called a system of accounts, and include a national economic development account, environmental quality account, regional development account, and social well-being account.

Tables 3 and 4 provide the basic data for the system of accounts displayed in this section. The outputs of the alternatives are expressed as those obtained from the river corridor. They are based on land suitability/capability and past trends.

As previously discussed, no NEU alternatives were considered because there are no firm proposals for economic development within the study segments of the Verde Kiver. All alternatives for the river can be considered EQ alternatives although they do have some economic benefit. Because the primary objective of Alternatives B, C and D is environmental protection, and the magnitude of the economic benefits is small, these three alterna­tives are considered primarily EQ alternatives.

The values used in the analysis are those used in the 1980 RPA recommended program. An economic impact analysis model (de­veloped during the RARE II process for the Coconino, Gila, and Yavapai Counties) was used to determine the impacts on each of several economic indicators for the alternatives.

NED Account. Table 5 displays the outputs by alternatives, annual costs, and the effects on the national economy expressed as annual income and person years employment. Estimated initial cost of acquiring scenic easements, construction of facilities, and planning is also displayed for comparison purposes.

-49-

EQ Account. The environmental quality account in Table 6 dis­[Jfays-ffie-effects of the alternatives on selected components of the environment.

Regional Uevelopment Account. A Regional development account is concerned with economic -effects of a proposal on the immed­iate region of study. It shows the direct and indirect effects on economic activities induced by the alternatives. Table 7 displays the gross Kegional product generated, Regional income generated, and Kegional employment generated for each alternative.

Social Well-8eing Account. Social well-being is defined as the number of choices people can ~ake. When choice is broadened, social wel I-being is enhanced or improved. Social well:being is displayed for the alternatives in Table 8.

TABLE 5

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT]:_/

Accourl.!_ Compone~_!_ ~ter:_._~ Outdoor Recreation (RVD's) 2/

Picnicking - 4,984 Camping 8,440 Water-based Recreation 7,995 Dispersed Motorized 1,595 Dispersed Nonmotorized 1,300 Hunting 2,407 Wildlife-Nonhunting 1,145 Fishing 7,705

Total Annual Visitor Days 35,57f

Recreation Annual Income Rec~eation Annual Cost

Employment Created By Recreation (Private Sector

$168,897 $9,441

Person Years) 24.37 Dome-st rc:-crve-s-focT ______ - ---- - -

Annual Output (AUM's) 3/ 1,190 Annual Costs - $2,380

Locatable Minerals Acres Withdrawn 4/ Acres Open for Entry

Leasable Minerals Acres Withdrawn Acres Available

Transportation System lJevelopment Cost Annual Maintenance Cost

Recreation Facilities Development Costs Annual Maintenance

Scenic Easement Acquisition

Management Plan Preparation

15,820 7,640

0 23,460

62,000 $17,480

0 0

0

0

Alter. B

5,562 9,683 9,573 1,500 l, 615 2,547 1,336 9,732

41,548

$201,119 $11, 080

29.05

1,190 $2,380

15,820 7,640

5,600 17,860

118' 000 $31,905

102,500 $3,600

~/

$13,000

Alter. C

5,596 10,047 10,216

200 1,707 2,547 1,459

10,101 42,273

$212,623 $11, 588

30.73

1, 190 $2,380

15,820 7,640

5,600 17,860

370,000 $44' 100

225,000 $5,400

$1,075,700

$23,000

Alter. l)

6,191 10,376 10,470

0 1,741 2,547 1,504

10,236 43,065

$217,521 $11, 845

31.44

1,190 $2,380

15,820 7,640

5,600 17,860

370,000 $44,100

225,000 $5,400

$2,041,500

$25,000

l_/-Uriles-s--othe-rwTse--fodi cated, a 11 costs a re expressed in 1980 do 11 ars and are one-time expenditures. The alternative effects are projected to the year 1990.

2/ RVlJ's - Recreation Visitor Days, 12-hour use period. 3/ AUM's - Animal Use Months. 4/ Acres currently withdrawn from mineral entry by Reclamation Withdr·awals. 5/ See footnotes at the bottom of pages 38 and 56 for definition of Scenic - Easements.

-51-

I U1 rv I

- -- -- - -------

TAt3LE 6

EFFECTS ON COMPONENTS OF THE EQ ACCOUNT

I Alternative A I Components __ -+ No Designation ______ l Free-Flowing Option to develop l River I water and power I

I projects remain I I open. I I I

I I Alternative B _____ _L Alternative l_ ____ _LAl~ernative _Q_ ____ _ 17.5 miles protected! 17.5 miles protectedj 17.5 miles pro-as wild; 22 miles I as wild; 22 miles I tected as wild; protected as scenic. I protected as scenic;I 22 miles pro-

1 33 miles protected I tected as scenic; I as recreation. I 38.5 miles pro-

I I l I tected as recre---- ______ J___ ______________ _L__ __________________ J_ ________________ l ati~·- _______ _ Maintain and I Loss of habitat I Habitat will be pro-I Habitat protected inl Habitat protected Protect t3ald I from private land I tected in segment B. j all but 5.5 miles ofl in entire study Eagle Habitat I development and I I study area. I corridor.

I inundation could I I I _______ I occur. __________ _L ___________________ j_ __________ . ________ j_ _______________ _ Protect and I Protected by I Protection would continue under existing laws, however, Preserve His- I current laws. I National designation would attract more visitors which may torical Arch- I I result in increased damage and vandalism. Identification ological Sites J__ ______________ J_ and protection _~_?_i_tes _would be stressed_~ managem~_!_B.l_a_Q_.__ Maintain Water I Existing State and I Classification assures protection of water quality and Quality and I Federal law would I quantity. ·

~~~~~! ~~ See-met ~:t~~~~ i ~:~~~; and--t--Only-t-hose--fa_n_d_s_ -- -,- -AtofaT -oT72.-5-- -- --1--AlltHe-ar_e_a_ WiTh-_:-Qualities I open space on pri- I within segment B I miles the river I in the study area

I vate land currently I of the study area I would be subject to I would be subject

I regulated by local I would be subject to I constraints associ- I to constraints as-zoning only. I constraints asso- I ated with the Wild I sociated with the

I I ciated with the I and Scenic Rivers I Wild and Scenic I I Wild and Scenic I System. I Rivers System.

____________ L ___________________ J_ _ Ri v~_s System. _ __ _L _________________ l ______________ _ Irreversible orj No assurances. I No assurances in I Assures long-term J Assures long-term Irretrievable I I segment A. Assures I options for non- I options for non-Commitment of I I long-term options I consurnptive uses j consumptive uses Resources I I for nonconsurnµt i ve I in a 11 but 5. 5 I in the study

I I uses in segment B. I miles of the study I corridor. _________ J_ ________________ _L __________________ J_ corridor. __________ J_ _____________ _

I

I

TABLE 7

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Account Component

Gross Regional Product Generated

Agriculture (livestock) Agriculture (other) Trade & Manufacturing Minerals & Energy Services (Rec. & Tourism) All Other Economic Sectors

Total Product

Regional Income Generated

Agriculture (livestock) Agriculture (other) Trade & Manufacturing Minerals & Energy Services (Rec. & Tourism) All Other Economic Sectors

Total Income

Regional Employment Generated (Person Years)

Agriculture (livestock) Agriculture (other) Trade & Manufacturing Minerals & Energy Services (Rec. & Tourism) All Other Economic Sectors

Total Employment

No Designation Alter. A Alter. ~

lLl 51

78,224 337

lOU, n3 37,847

$217,493

32 16

32,551 53

52,463 13' 722

$98,836

.005

.002 4.561

.003 10.199 1. 55

16.320

136 60

92,904 401

119,998 45,103

$258,602

36 19

38,652 63

62,48cl 16 '352

$117 ,610

.006 • 002

5.414 • 003

12.181 1.848

19.454

-53-

Alter. C

142 62

98,393 423

126,901 4 7 '232

$273' 153

37 20

40,947 64

66' 103 16,686

$123,857

.006

. 003 5.736

.004 12.898 1. 93

20.574

Alter. D

144 72

100,800 442

129,885 48,098

$279,441

38 20

41,955 68

67,635 17,418

$127,134

.007

.003 5.878 .004

13.198 1.965

21. 055

I (.Jl

+:> I

TABLE 8

SOCIAL WELL-BEING

Component I No Action I I I l'J_e_e_c!_ _________ + Alternative_~ _____ _L_ Alternative B ______ +Alternative _f: ________ lAlternative D Recreation Little change from I Segment B would be All but 5.5 miles of jFull length of ___ _ Experience I existing status. I protected in near I study area would be jriver would be re-

Freed-om-of Travel

l Could be some I natural condition. I retained in near ltained in near gradual decline due I Improved access in I natural condition. \natural condition.

I to private lands I segment B would en- I Better access would !Better access would I limiting access to I courage more recre- I increase number of increase number of I river. ___________ L_ationJ:J_s_~ ___________ J__r::_eJ:_r_e_~ior~_:!_sts. ____ lrecreationists. ___ _ I Some improvement, I ORV travel restricted! ORV travel re- IORV travel re-l however many of the on study segment 13. I stricted on all but stricted on entire I current access I Improved road and I 5. 5 miles of study I study area. Im-\ problems would I trail access in seg- I area. Improved road (proved road and I remain. I ment B. I and trail access to ltrai I access to

________________ _L ___________________ L ______________________ Lbo~_segments. ___ I both se_gmen_s;_._ ___ _ Private I Private land rights I Very limited impact I Moderate impact on !This alternative Ownership I constrained only by on private land private land rights. jwould have the Rights I State law and countyj rights. I jgreatest impact

I regulations. I I jon private land

Ta-xlrase ___ ·tra-£ba-sewouTd--n-oY-t-very-sTfg-hY-de-crease-f-Ac_q_uTsTtTo-n--ofscen-fc ~~~~;~hTo-nof ___ _ I be affected. I in tax base. I easements could pro- !scenic easements I I I duce a much greater lcoul d have the I I reduction in the tax !greatest reduc-1 I I base but less than jtion on the tax

LiTe-;-HeaTth,-tN-eutralfor -fhTs ___ - t-Ne_u_fr_a_r _fo_r-ThTs-- ----+ ~:~~~~r~~~ ~hfs- -- -- \ ~!~~~aT-ro-r-fhTs- ----_Safe!,y____ I component. ________ I component. _______ l component. ___________ Lcomponent. ______ _ Emergency I Currently, 15,820 I No change from I Approximately 7,160 \Approximately 7,640 Prepar~dness I acres of the river \ Alternative A except I acres of the open-to- acres of the open-

1 study corridor is I approximately 5,600 I entry lands would be Ito-entry lands I withdrawn from I acres would be with- \ subject to resric- \would be subject to I mineral entry by I drawn from mineral I tions imposed by des-lrestrictions imposed I Reclamation With- I leasing. I ignation and approxi-1by designation and I drawals. The re- I mately 5,600 acres approximately 5,600 I rnaining 7,640 acres I I would be withdrawn jacres would be with-! are open to entry I \ from mineral leasing. !drawn from mineral I without restric- I jleasing. I ti ons. __________ _L ___________________ .l__ ___________________ J_ ___________ _

1. Alternative A. The no action alternative would not cur­tail private land uses or water developments. Power and Reclamation withdrawals would remain in effect. Construc­tion and maintenance of stream gauging stations and other water related improvements would be permitted within normal environmental constraints.

Development of private lands within the study corridor will continue under state and county guidelines. For example, a portion of the Verde Ranch Property has been subdivided into over 75 residential lots. None of the lots have been sold. However, the existence of the subdivision indicates development potential. Similar type developments on private lands could have an adverse impact on the general appearance of the landscape, water quality, and wildlife habitat.

Livestock grazing would continue within a balance of range capacity as defined and directed in current allotment manage­ment plans. Range improvements would be considered as needed to effectively manage the river corridor. Cattle exclosures necessary to protect key wildlife riparian areas and the establishment of young cottonwood trees would be constructed as planned without constraints that may be imposed by designation.

Recreation use would continue to increase at a slow to moderate rate. The increase would be in proportion to the general population trend. River use would also increase as other more desirable rivers become congested. Oppor­tunities for future recreation developments would continue to exist.

There are no present plans for constructing new access roads; however, there is a need to resolve the current river access conflict between the using public and private landowners along the river. Obtaining road rights-of-way or construc­tion of short road sections are both viable alternatives. Futur~ road development would be constrained only by the necessary environmental considerations. The same would be true for utility corridors, railroad and pipeline rights-of-way along or crossing the river. Current Federal and State laws and regulations would apply to mining activities.

This alternative does not provide permanent protection of the free-flowing nature of the river. Construction of dams and other developments for irrigation and hydroelectric power would not be precluded.

-55-

2. Al_:t;_~native 8. Under triis alternative, river segrnent A be­tween the Forest boundary and Clarkdale would not be desig­nated and segment B between Beasley Flats and Table Mountain would be designated and classified scenic and wild. The effects listed for Alternative A apply to segment A to the extent that any planned actions within the segment do not destroy the free-flowing nature of the designated portion of the river. The following effects apply to river seg­ment B.

Llesignation and classification may curtail some uses and development on the included parcel of private lands. These constraints could be in the form of Stdte, County, local zoning ordinances or scenic easements 1/ acquired by the Federal Government. Private land uses-such as commercial development, erection of signs or billboards, subdivisions and permanent trailers or mobile homes could be curtailed. The private landowner would be fully compensated for loss of development rights should it be necessary to obtain a scenic easement. Present uses would not be affected with­out the consent of the I andowner. The landowner wi 11 retain title to the land. Public access provisions would not be included in an easement for the Brown Springs prop­erty since the privately-owned lands do not extend to the river's edge. Recreationists and other river visitors would not be allowed on private lands without the owner's permission.

Following designation, a detailed study of the river's access system woul ct be made. Existing roads and trails would be evaluated and upgraded or closed as needed to provide reasonable public access or protect the values which caused the river to be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The need for parking and sani­tation facilities would also be evaluated during the study. Off-road vehicle travel would not be permitted within the river corridor. New road construction and utility corri­dors would be permitted immediately adjacent to the clas­sified river sections, if they do not detract froril scenic values and meet the existing environmental constraints.

1/ "Scenic easement" means the right to control the use of land (inclu­ding the air space above such land) within the authorized boundaries of a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, for the purpose of protecting the natural qualities of a designated wild, scenic, or recreational river area, but such control shall not effect, without the owner's consent, any regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of the easement. (16 U.S.C. 1286) In the case of the Verde River, the terms of the scenic easement would be negotiated with each landowner.

-56-

Improved access and designation of the river segment is anticipated to increase recreation use of the river. The majority of the additional users would come from other than local communities, providing some economical benefit to the Verde Valley. Primitive type recreation opportunities would be retained for the designated river segment.

Designation would not preclude geothermal development along the river. However, the developments must be compatable with river segment classification.

Subject to valid existing rights, the minerals in Federal lands which constitute the bed or banks of the river or are within one-quarter mile of the bank are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws or mineral leas­ing laws for the classified wild river section. Mining acti­vities on valid claims within the scenic classified section would be subject to regulations deemed necessary by the Secre­tary of Agriculture for the protection of the river values.

Livestock grazing will continue to the extent it does not detract from the values for which the river was selected and designated under the provisions of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Unobtrusive fences and other range im­provements would be permitted if they do not produce a signi­ficant adverse impact on the natural character of the river.

Designation would increase the opportunity to enhance the habitat value of the river for the bald eagle and other threatened and endangered wildlife species. Increased rec­reation use resulting from designation could reach a point where it adversely affects the nesting bald eagle and other wildlife species. Should a user-wildlife conflict result, some user restrictions would be required. The increased number of people using the river would also produce a greater wildfire risk and could have a slight adverse effect on water quality.

Designation would not affect the current operation and main­tenance of existing facilities such as Childs Power Plant, gauging stations, transmission lines, fences, etc. Depar­tures from current procedures, including access and new construction that adversely affects the natural character of the area could be prohibited.

This alternative protects the free-flowing nature and out­standing values of the river between Beasley Flats and Table Mountain. Dams and other diversion structures cannot be constructed in this segment.

-57-

3. Alternative C. This alternative designates all but 5.5 miles of river segment A and all of segment B into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The effects listed for Alternative A apply to the undesignated por­tion of the river and the effects listed for Alternative B apply to the designated and classified river segment B. The following discussion applies to the designated portion of river seg1nent A between the Verde Ranch and Clarkdale, which would be classified recreation.

A recreational classification for the designated portion of river segment A would curtail some uses and development on five separate parcels of private lands. The constraints could be in the form of State regulations, local government zoning ordinances, and/or scenic easements acquired by the Federal Government. Landowners would be fully compensated for any loss in the market value of their properties if it is necessary to acquire scenic easements. Present land uses would not be affected without the owner's consent. The landowner wi 11 retain title to the land. The necessary rights to assure reasonable public access to and along the river would be acquired.

A portion of the included private lands have potential for subdivision. This type of development could have an adverse impact on water quality. Tt1e river would require periodic monitoring and enforcement of State Water Quality Standards.

Following designation, a detailed study of the river's access system would be made. Existing roads and trails would be evaluated and upgraded or closed as needed to provide reason­able public access or protect the values which caused the river to be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The need for parking and sanitation facilities would also be evaluated during the study. Off-road vehicle travel would not be permitted within the river corridor. New road construction and utility corridors would be permitted immedi­ately adjacent to the classified river section, if they do not detract from scenic values and meet the existing environ­mental constraints. Trail access to the river section south of Perkinsville would be required.

There are three potential recreation development sites along the river between Perkinsville and the Verde Ranch. None of the inventoried sites are currently programmed for development.

Except for primitive type improvements, future recreation facilities (campgrounds, etc.) would be located outside the river corridor.

-58-

Mining and leasing activities on Federal lands within the boundaries of the Recreation classified river section would be subject to regulations deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture for protection of the river values. Geo­thermal development would be affected but will not be prohibited.

The effect of designation on livestock grazing and wildlife, including the eagle, would be the same as described for river segment B under Alternative B. Grazing will be permitted and the opportunity for wildlife habitat enhance­ment would be increased.

The effect of designation on operation and maintenance of existing facilities would be the same as described for river segment B under Alternative B. Deviation from current methods of operation and maintenance that adversely affects the natural character of the area could be prohibited.

The designation of any part of the Verde River in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System should increase recreation use. Wild and scenic classification of river segment B would tend to increase the number of out of state users, and recreation classification of river segment A with improved access would tend to increase state and local use rs.

This alternative protects the free-flowing nature and out­standing values of river segment B and a 11 but 5. 5 mil es of segment A. The river section excluded from designation contains a high percentage of private lands.

4. Alternative~ Under this alternative, all of the eligible river segments would be designated. The 5.5 mile river section between the west Forest boundary and the Verde Ranch would be classified as recreation resulting in total recreational classification for river segement A. River segment B would be classified as scenic and wild as in Al­ternative C.

The effects of implementing this alternative would be essentially the same as for Alternative C with the added impacts of additional private lands. Scenic easements or zoning restrictions would be required on private lands that lie along 4 1ni l es of the designated 5. 5 rni le river section.

This alternative protects the free-flowing nature and out­standing values of the two Verde River segments designated for study in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended.

-59-

1. Alternative A. No loss in long-term productivity of the environment would result from short-term uses in the fore­seeable future under this alternative.

This alternative would allow for dams and other developments that could affect the free-flowing nature of the river. These developments could reduce long-term productivity of the river in providing water-based recreation derived from the free-flowing condition of the river. However, these same developments could provide long-term productivity of hydroelectric power, irrigation water, and recreation activities oriented around the use of lakes created by a darn.

2. Alternative B. The short-term uses planned under this al­ternative would not affect long-term productivity. This alternative designates only segment B of the river between Beasley Flats and Table Mountain. Therefore, potential for water storage and/or power production in segrnent B would be legislatively rPmoved for the foreseeable future but would remain a potential long-term option. Some opportunities for intensive or incompatible development on one parcel of private land may be eliminated by zoning ordinances or by Federal acquisition of scenic easements. A very small acreage would be cornmitted to roads, trails, parking and sanitation facilities.

The relationship between short-terrn uses and long-term productivity in river segment A between the west Forest boundary and Clarkdale is the same as Alternative A.

3. Alternative C. This alternative designates all but 5.5 miles of the river within the study area. The constraints on potential water developments within the classified river sections are the same as for Alternative B. This alternative affects 4 additional private land parcels, thus more development options would be foregone. This alternative commits additional acres to roads, parking and sanitation facilities, removing this land from vege­tative production.

4. Alternative u. This alternative designates all eligible river segments; therefore, constraints on water develop­ments would be placed on the entire study length. Under this alternative all private landowners could be affected by zoning ordinances or scenic easement acquisition. This alternative would also commit additional acres to roads, parking and sanitation facilities.

-60-

E. Summary of Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be A-vofciecr------------ --

1. Alternative A. The probable adverse environmental effects under Alternative A are limited. Additional subdivision of the private lands within the study area could occur. Unless carefully planned, subdivision development can have adverse effects on visual qualities, wildlife habitat, and recreation experiences in the immediate river area. Long-term probable adverse environmental effects are not expected, but could result from implementation of economic development options (reservoirs, highways, etc.) which could occur under this alternative.

2. Alternative B. The probable adverse environmental effects under this alternative are also quite limited. Some modif­ication of the natural environment would occur with the improved road and trail access and the additional parking and sanitation facilities needed in river segment B between Beasley Flats and Table Mountain. Development options on the private land could be constrained by zoning ordinances or Federal purchase of development rights.

3. Alternative C. The probable adverse environmental effects are the same as in Alternative B except additional private land rights could be constrained. Also, some modification of the natural environment would occur because of road construc­tion, trail construction, and additional parking and sanitation needs.

4. Alternative O. The probable adverse environmental effects are the same as Alternative B except all private land parcels within the study area could be affected by scenic easements or local zoning.

F. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

1. Alternative A. None of the activities proposed under this alternative would result in short-term irreversible or irre­trievable commitment of resources.

Economic developments which could occur under this alter­native in the future (water storage, hydroelectric develop­ment, highway construction, utility corridors, mining) could result in irreversible or irretrievable commitment of re­sources but would be addressed after specific proposals have been made, through the environmental analysis process.

-61-

2. Alternatives B, C, and O. Oesiqnation into the National \~i ld and ScenTc Rivers System does not constitute an irreversible or irretrievable commitment for the future, as Congress has the authority to change or rescind the designation if the need occurs. Zoning ordinances could be changed or eliminated and scenic easements could be returned to landowners. The improved roads, trails, and parking areas could be considered as an irreversible commitment of the lands upon which they are constructed.

-62-

VI. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVcS

In Table 9 the four alternatives are evaluated using the criteria outlined in Section III, C. The ratings used to measure the degree to which the alternatives meet the criteria are for relative compar­ison purposes only and should not be interpreted to mean absolute criteria attainment. Table 9 is used for a horizontal comparison of the alternatives for each evaluation criterion. The ratings must not be added vertically because the evaluation criteria are not equally important.

TABLE 9

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES

CRITERIA A __ 13 ____ C_ D

1. Preserving free-flowing conditions and outstandingly remarkable characteristics of the river and its immediate environment.

2. Conform to availability and suitability of those lands involved.

3. Minimize impacts on private land rights.

4. Display high degree of cornpat i bil ity with desire and recommendations of State and local governments.

5. Increase supply of outdoor recreation opportunities and services through Forest Service programs that emphasize dispersed recreation.

6. Provide a mix of goods and services re­sponsive to local area economic growth.

7. Ensure protection and enhancement of habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife speci~s.

+

++

0

0

+

0

++ Alternative meets the criteria to a high degree.

0

+

+

0

+

0

+

+ Alternative meets the criteria to a moderate degree. O Alternative meets the criteria to a minimal degree.

Alternative does not meet the criteria.

++ ++

+ +

0 0

++ ++

++ ++

]j

l/ Neither Alternative C or U meets the minimu1n criteria •. Alternative U has twice the impact on private land as Alternative C.

-63-

Following is a detailed discussion of the summarized information in Table 9.

Criterion 1. Alternative D obviously meets the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Even though Alternative C excludes 5.5 miles of river, it still meets the criterion to a high degree. Alterna­tive B also meets the intent of the Act but to a lesser degree. Alternative A does not provide for long-term free-flowing condi­tions or protection of outstandingly remarkable values for any portion of the river; therefore, it does not meet this criterion.

Criterion 2. All four alternatives were designated to conform to the availability and suitability of the lands involved; therefore, they all equally meet this criterion. However, the present, un­developed primitive condition of the river and its immediate environ­ment makes it available and suitable for protection of its free­flowing character and associated values under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Criterion 3. River designation could result in some loss of devel­opment rights by private landowners. Alternative B may require a scenic easement or zoning restrictions on a portion of the Brown Springs private property although these restrictions are not essential they may be desirable. This loss of private land development rights would be relatively minor when compared to Alternatives C and D. Alternative C could impact 737 acres of private lands and Alternative D could impact 1,500 acres of private lands and twelve landowners. Alternative A is preferred by local landowners because it recommends no designation and would have no impact on landownership rights.

Designation in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System would also place some constraints on the general public. For example, vehicle use would be restricted to designated roads within the river corridor. These restrictions would be viewed by local river users as impacts on their rights to use the river.

Criterion 4. There were seven state agencies that supported designa­tion of the river and seven that did not indicate a preference. The Arizona State Land Department indicated that designation of the river would be premature at this time. They stated that until the watershed has been adjudicated and the water rights of the State of Arizona, in­cluding claims to CAP water, has been fixed by court decree, the State Land Department must protest any proposal which may adversely impact the claims of the State.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department strongly supports designation under Alternative C. The Department feels that designation would pro­vide the needed riparian habitat protection, zoning restrictions and enhance the department's efforts to reestablish the river otter.

Comments received from the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Com­mission support the Wild and Scenic River designation. The commission emphasizes the limited opportunities for recreation on free-flowing

-64-

rivers in Arizona and believe protection of these rivers is needed as the state's "continued economic and population growth exert increasing pressure on the state's limited resources".

Most of the river's study corridor is located within Yavapai County. Approximately 17 miles along the east side of the river between the junction of Fossil Creek and Table Mountain is located in Gila County. Throughout the study process Gila County has stated its preference for no designation (Alternative A). Reasons include opposition to any classification action which would restrict or reduce present multiple­use of Gila County resources or increase county custodial services and cost, such as Search and Rescue Operations. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors were aware of the river study but did not comment.

The Prescott City Council supports designation of the river under Al­ternative C. The council stated that this alternative "would avoid or, at least m1n1m1ze any potential conflict with the future use of Prescott's water needs."

Local ranching interests favor Alternative A, the no designation al­ternative. They have expressed the concern that there could be re­strictions on grazing which would affect the local ranching economy.

Comments received on the Draft Environmental Statement from residents of the Verde Valley indicated 84 percent were in favor of no designa­tion. A summary of all comments received indicates a preference of 51 percent for designation.

Criterion 5. All of the alternatives assure a short-term con-tinuance of dispersed recreation management along the Verde River. However, only Alternatives B, C, and D that contain designated river segments assure dispersed recreation emphasis over the long term. Alternative B designates 38.5 miles of the river's study length and meets the criterion to a moderate degree when compared to Alternatives C and D, which designates for 72.5 miles and 78 miles respectively.

The specific capacities and demands for dispersed recreation use along the Verde River are not currently known. However, it can be anticipated that, at some point in the future, demand will exceed capacity under all alternatives. Alternative A would provide the opportunity for reservoir development and thus increase the capacity for reservoir-related opportunities, while at the same time reducing the opportunities for dispersed recreation use associated with a free-flowing river.

Criterion 6. River designation would have little or no effect on grazing or water outputs on the Tonto, Prescott or Coconino National Forests. Also, the action would not change the Forest's ability to meet rapidly-changing local needs. Designation over the long term could have a minor negative effect on mineral and energy development. Also, river designation prevents some recreation development and

-65-

private land development opportunities which could increase revenues in Yavapai and Gila Counties to some degree.

Alternative A best meets this criterion because it does not elimin­ate future options for development on National Forest and private lands. Alternative B meets this criterion to a higher degree than C or D because river segment A between the Forest boundary and Clarkdale remains open for development.

Criterion 7. Protection and enhancement of habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species are achieved by all four alternatives. The emphasis currently being placed on management of the riparian resource along tt1e Verde River is the result of a plan prepared by the Tonto, Prescott and Coconino National Forests to resolve live­stock-riparian conflicts. The plan contains a development program which is designed to promote the establishment of cottonwood regen­eration along the river channel. The exclusion of livestock during the seedling (cutting) establishment period is expected to enhance the habitat for both threatened and endangered and other wildlife species. The program prescribed by the plan will continue to be implemented whether or not the river is designated. River designa­tion could constrain some proposed improvements, but little effect is anticipated.

Scenic easements or zoning restrictions required by Alternatives C and U would prevent development of private lands along the river's edge, reserving these sites for production of riparian vegetation. The private land parcel in Alternative 8 does not extend to the river's edge; therefore, the potential for destroying riparian habitat does not exist.

River designation with the recommended improved access would in­crease the number of recreation visitors. This increase could have an adverse impact on wildlife, specifically the nesting bald eagle. The Forest Service is currently placing restrictions on the using public during critical nesting periods. This practice is ex­pected to continue whether or not the river is designated.

Designation under Alternatives B, C and D would ensure protection of the existing eagle habitat by precluding dam construction and exces­sive diversions on portions of the river. Under Alternatives C and D, river segments B and all or part of river segment A would be des­ignated. These two alternatives would provide more protection ensur­ance for a greater length of river than Alternative B which only designates river segment B. It should be noted that river segment B contains established eagle nesting territories. None have been rec­ognized in river segment A.

-66-

VII. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

A. Preferred Alternative.

Alternative B is the preferred alternative. This would classify 17.5 miles of the river as wild and 22 miles as scenic. The total area designated as components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System would encompass about 12,640 acres of which 26 are private, and 12,614 are National Forest System lands. The estimated cost of the action over a 10-year period excluding annual maintenance, is $220,500. The Forest Service would administer the designated component and bear would all costs of the recommended action. and local agencies would be asked to support the designation. preferred alternative map, page iv.

river State See

Alternative B is a compromise between local desires and other pub-1 ic interests. Designation under this alternative would preserve the most prestine segment of the Verde River for future genera­tions. It would also reduce the impacts on private landowners and keep the options open for flood control and exchange of CAP water.

The reasons for selection of Alternative B, which is a change from the preferred alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact State­ment (Alternative C), are as follows:

1. The local public (Verde Valley) expressed strong opposition to designation. The Valley residents represented over 46 percent of the total respondents to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of which 84 percent preferred no designation. The reasons given varied from "get out-leave us alone" to concern for excluding future developments.

2. The cost of implementing Alternative C ($1,693,700) was ques­tioned by several respondents. Those that preferred designa­tion questioned if the expenditures were necessary. The re­spondents that preferred to continue current management indi­cated the cost of implementation was exorbitant and that the American people could not afford the expense at this time.

3. There was a concern that designation would hinder or preclude a possible exchange of Central Arizona Project water with Salt River Project water along the Verde River. This was expressed by several respondents including the Arizona State Land De­partment and the Department of Interior - Water and Power Resources Service. See discussion on Central Arizona Pro­ject in Appendix D.

4. The Central Arizona Water Control Study should resolve the Phoenix Valley flooding problems. However, the flooding of the Verde Valley will continue unless some action is taken. The current flood control study involving the old Clarkdale Dam

-67-

site in river segment A has not been released to the public. See CAWCS summary in Appendix C.

5. All private landowners within the river study corridor that responded to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement objected to designation because of the loss of private ownership rights through scenic easements. With the exception of one 26-acre parcel, all private lands involved (1474 acres) are located in river segment A. While desirable, the acquisition of scenic easements or county zoning on segments is not essential for management as a designated river.

6. Many non-Verde Valley respondents that preferred designation gave examples of their personal experiences in river segment B. Some stated they had not yet seen or used the river but would like to keep it free-flowing for future generations. It was apparent from the comments that river segment A re­ceives more use by local residents that by other publics.

Alternative B meets all seven of the selection criteria to a moderate or minimal degree. It presents a reasonable mix of outputs requested or expected by the public. The action would preserve the free-flowing condition and the outstandingly remarkable characteristics of the river segment between Beasley Flats and Table Mountain. It would increase the opportunities for dispersed recreation and protection and enhancement of threatened and endangered wildlife species and plants.

The alternative conforms to the availability and suitability of the lands involved.

Local and County governments were divided with Prescott Town Council favoring designation and Gila County favoring no designation. The re­sponding state agencies that provided substantial comments were also split. The Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Arizona Recrea­tion Coordinating Commission supports designation, whereas the State Land Department prefers deferring action until water rights have been determined and CAP allocations made.

Designation would impose minor restrictions on lands currently open for mining exploration and mineral leasing. Off-road vehicle use would be prohibited. However, this loss to the local economy would be more than offset by income generated by increased recreation use.

B. Reason for Non-selection.

Alternative A. This alternative was not selected because it does not insure preservation of any portion of the river in a free-flowing condition, nor would it provide maximum protection for the outstand­ingly remarkable values. Also, this alternative would not greatly enhance dispersed recreational opportunities, because the funding of improved access and construction of support facilities would receive a relatively low priority without designation of the river.

-68-

The alternative meets only one of the selection criteria to a high degree and three to a moderate degree. It would eliminate the impacts of designation on private lands and permit development along the river, which could provide a 1nix of goods and services to the local area economy.

Alternatives C and D. The criteria evaluation table indicates that Alternatives C and-Dare rated the same. This is not surprising since the only difference between the alternatives is the desig­nation of the uppermost 5.5 miles of the river. Alternative D satisfies criteria 1, 5, and 7, to a slightly higher degree than Alternative C. However, this satisfaction is offset by criteria 3, where the biggest difference between the two alternatives exists. Since 4 miles of the 5.5 mile section is in private ownership, Alternative D would restrict development on almost twice as many acres of private 1 ands ( 1, 500 acres) as Alternative C, and substantially increase costs associated with obtaining access and scenic easements. Designation of the private land river section would also increase the cost of management plan preparation and decrease the local tax base. Both Alternatives C and D would preclude or restrict flood control and CAP water exchange activities.

Alternative Eliminated (Alternative E). It was determined during the study that the river section between Table Mountain and Tangle Creek qualifies for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The only reason the 10.5 mile section was not added to river segment B and recommended for designation under Alternative B was because the effects were not evaluated and presented to the public in the Draft Environmental Statement. We received comments from 73 respondents requesting that the river section be added to Alternative C or D for consideration.

C. Management Plan.

If the Verde River is designated as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, a management plan would be pre­pared. The objectives of the plan would be to protect and en­hance the values which enabled the river to be added to the National System and at the same time, produce minimum impacts on private landowners and existing land use practices.

As a minimum, the management plan would contain the following:

l. Specific boundaries of the designated river segments.

2. A determination of instream-flow needs for Wild and Scenic River purposes.

3. River access system including sanitation and parking facilities.

-69-

4. Measures for protection of fish and wildlife resources with particular attention given to the bald eagle and riparian habitat.

5. Measures for protection of scenic, historic and cultural values.

6. An evaluation of private land to determine scenic ease­ment and/or zoning ordinance requirements.

7. A determination of recreation use capacity and controls including off-road vehicle use.

8. An evaluation of public safety requirements.

Y. A pollution monitoring system.

10. Measures for protecting water quality.

11. Fire protection considerations.

l~. Recurring operation and maintenance needs including law enforcement requirements.

13. Coordination with State, county, and local governments.

-70-

VIII. CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS

A. Su_rnmary of Public Involvement

Public involvement for the study followed the Public Involvement Plan developed to coordinate information dissemination and public participation for simultaneous study of the Salt, San Francisco and Verde Rivers. In March 1979 an issue-scoping meeting was held with Federal and State agency representatives to discuss the study of the three rivers. At this time, initial issues and concerns of these agencies were identified. Repre­sented at the meeting were 19 agencies, Office of the Governor and ttiree Congressmen. Also in March, key citizens and county governments were briefed on the study process and Congressional direction. An issue-scoping meeting was held in April 1979, for representatives of typical statewide user groups and organizations such as ranchers, hikers, campers, river runners, timber industry, environmentalists, outdoor writers, etc. Representatives from 14 organizations and groups attended this meeting.

A public open house was held in Mesa, Arizona in May 1979, to discuss the study and public concerns on the three Arizona rivers. The open house was attended by 16 people. Also in May, an open house was held in Camp Verde, Arizona to discuss specif­ically the study and public concerns relating to the Verde River. This open house was attended by seven people. Individual briefings on possible impacts of the study were also held with congressional representatives in Phoenix during this period.

All these initial public participation opportunities were announced in advance through statewide and local news media, personal contacts with key individuals, local government officials, organization leaders, and announcement in the Federal Register. A special effort was made to utilize printed and electronic news media for dissemination of information concerning the study.

A briefing was presented on the study of the Verde River at the Yavapai County Board of Supervisor's Meeting in March 1979. The County was invited to participate in developing the eligibilitf criteria to be used in evaluating the three rivers.

On September 19, 1979, a workshop was held in Phoenix, Arizona to receive input on the eligibility criteria for the three Arizona rivers. The workshop was attended by 42 people repre­senting Federal, State and local government agencies, affected counties, statewide organizations and user groups.

In November 1979, an array of alternatives that considered desig­nation and non-designation of the rivers was presented to the

-71-

public by publication of a Forest Service produced Wild and Scenic Rivers newspaper. Included in the newspaper were de­scriptions of the alternatives with maps, franked return mail comment sheets, and information on public open house meetings scheduled for December 1979. Over 3,000 copies of the news­paper were distributed.

The open house public meetings held in Uecember 1979 in Phoenix and Camp Verde were attended by 78 people. The newspaper and Uecember open house meetings resulted in 77 written comments concerning the Verde River Wild and Scenic Rivers Study.

Throughout the study process there have been multiple contacts with range permittees, landowners, civic organizations, local government representatives and other interested individuals.

The contact methods varied, depending on the anticipated public interest. A radio talk show conducted in Cottonwood, Arizona, prior to the Uecember Verde River open house meet­ing, produced the largest public audience.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released to the public in August 198U. During the 9U-day review period, the study received considerable newspaper, radio and television pub­licity in the Phoenix, Flagstaff, Prescott and Camp Verde areas. Individual meetings were held with interested private land owners, range permittees, groups, organizations and agencies.

13. Summary of Comments Received

The participants at the September 1979 eligibility criteria work­shop expressed their opinion that the Verde River, being a free­flowing river located in the semi-arid southwestern region, was in itself, unique. Workshop participants determined that the river has outstanding scenic, fish and wildlife, historic and cultural values.

A total of 379 written responses were received on the Uraft En­vironmental Impact Statement. Substantive input by some respond­ents resulted in changes in the statement including selection of a new preferred alternative.

Tables 10 and 11 provide a brief summary of the respondents by alternative preference and their residence.

-72-

TABLE 10

SUMMARY OF RESPONUENTS

BY ALTERNATIVE PREFERENCE

Respondent Represented I I I I

Federal Agencies I Congressional Delegates I Arizona State Agencies I State Elected Officials 1·

Counties County-Elected Officials! Town & City Councils I Indian Tribes I Corporations I Organizations I Individuals I

Total I

Total I-Ii rliT A~tr"~T"i11-u-nlll:oWn I Res::ndents 1-- i -1-!1-1--1--~-1

1 I 1 I I I I I I 15 1 1 I I 6 I 1 I I 7 I

~ I 1 I l I I I I 0 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I o I I I I I I I 4 I 2 I I I I I 2 I

19 I 2 I 2 I 6 I I 9 I I 332 164 I 2 75 I 21 I 64 I 383 11 11 n I 4 89 I 28 I 73 I 18 I

l/ There were 379 respondents to the Draft Environmental Statement. Gila County, Prescott City Council, Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission and the Southern Environmental Council responded prior to completion of the draft.

]:_/ These respondents preferred either Alternative C or D plus desig­nating the additional 10.5 miles of river between Table Mountain and Sheep Bridge.

-73-

TABLE 11

RESIDENCE OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS

bellernont, AZ Bisbee, AZ Camp Verde, AL Carefree, AL Chino Valley, AZ Clarkdale, AZ Corn vi 11 e , AZ Cottonwood, AZ Ue\vey, AZ Douglas, AZ Flagstaff, AZ Fredonia, AZ Kayenta, AZ Lake Montezuma, AZ McNeal, AZ Mesa, AZ Page, AZ Paradise Valley, AZ Paulden, AZ Phoenix, AZ Prescott, Al Prescott Valley, AZ Rimrock, AZ Scottsda 1 e, AZ Sedona, AZ Sun City West, AZ Sun Lakes, AZ Tempe, AZ Thatcher, AZ Tuba City, AZ Tucson, AZ Yuma, AZ

Juneau, AK San Francisco, CA San Mateo, CA Unknown

BY ALTERNATIVE PREFERENCE

11 --To_t_a_f-6_Ter~a~i ~T--C-1-- -D ,-=T7J l~~spondents L ___ J_ __ _L __ J_ ___ l ____ I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I \ 78 I 75 1 1 \ 2 I \ I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 17 I I I I I 17 I I 4 I 2 I I 2 I I I I 3 I 3 I I I I I 1 35 I 32 I I 3 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I i I I I I I 1 I I 16 J I 1 I 3 J 3 I 9 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I

I ~ I 7 1

1 I i I 1

I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 7 I 6 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I

I i I I l I I i I 17 J 7 I 1 4 I 1 I s I 76 I 3 I 1 49 I 19 I s

I 1 I 3

I I 1 I I 1 5 I I I 1 I I

I 3 I 2 I I I I 1 I 17 J 4 I J 3 I I lo I 7 I 7 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I

I f I i I i 1 I I 2

I 1 I I I I I 1 I 10 1 1 I 1 1 1 4 I 4 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I

I i I I i 1 I I 1

I 1 I I I 1 I I I TOTAL i 33~ !T6~ !--2 1-r~ i -z-~+64 i

1/ These individual respondents preferred either Alternative C or D - plus designating the additional lU.5 miles of river between Table

Mountain and Sheep Bridge.

-74-

For purpose of analysis, the respondents were divided into two groups. The local group is represented by Camp Verde, Cottonwood, Sedona and communities within and surrounding the Verde Valley. All other comments were analyzed together in the second group.

fhe local public indicated a strong preference for Alternative A with less than 16 percent favoring designation. Other than local respondents indicated a strong preference for designation with less than 21 percent favoring Alternative A. Combining all individual comments received, slightly over 50 percent preferred one of the designation alternatives (Alternative C was the most frequently preferred).

The most frequent reasons given for preference of a given alter­native are summarized as follows:

Alternative A

- Retains multiple-use management option.

- Provides for no change, keeps the river as it is.

- Not in favor of adding additional government regulation or controls to the river.

- Provides least interference with private landowner's rights.

- Provides more opportunity for economic development flexibility.

- Designation would hinder needed flood control action.

- Keeps more options open for energy development.

- Designation would be a further burden on the taxpayer.

- Designation would increase recreation use which would increase pollution and other adverse use effects.

- Continuation of present management is the best way to protect and reduce adverse impacts on wildlife.

Alternative B

Designation of the full length of the river would interfere with private ownership rights and traditional uses.

River segment A is not conducive to most forms of river running.

- This alternative will protect the beautiful lower reaches of the Verde River and the bald eagle.

- The landforms in river segment A are not exceptionally beautiful.

-75-

Alternative C

This alternative will protect some of the few remaining ri­parian areas in Arizona.

- Continuing current management will eventually erode the quality of the existing riparian habitat.

- Provides protection for wildlife including threatened and endangered species.

- Designation recognizes the recreation values and opportunities of the river.

This alternative preserves the river in its free-flowing condition.

Designation will preserve the river for future generations.

- The river has outstanding scenic beauty which needs to be protected and preserved.

This alternative µrevents development along the river.

- Less impact on private landowners than Alternative D.

Alternative lJ

Designation will protect the scenic, geologic and aesthetic values.

- Provides protection for threatened, endangered and other wildlife species.

- The recreation values are worthy of protection.

- It is important to preserve the wilderness values.

- The remaining few free-flowing rivers should be protected and remain free-flowing.

It is important to preserve riparian habitat because a large portion has already been lost.

- Entire Verde River should be designated regardless of private ownership.

Opposed to dams or power plants, there is already abundant power available for Arizona.

-76-

Alternative C or U Plus Designation of 10.5 Miles ~etween Table NountaTrl and Sheep Bridge

- Provides protection for threatened, endangered or special interest wildlife species - maximum river designation.

- The maximum amount of the river's length should be protected for riparian values considering the small amount currently protected in Arizona.

- Provides maximum recreation opportunities such as hiking, swimming, floating, etc.

- The area contains many sites of historical and cultural values.

- Preserves the free-flowing river.

Preserves the beauty of the river.

Let's keep the last one for future generations to enjoy.

- Preserves the river in its natural state.

The best way to keep the river the way it is is to put it into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and maintain the status quo.

The information provided in the preceding portion of this section should not be analyzed as a vote count, but considered a reflec­tion of concerns and a rough indicator of public sentiment toward management of the Verde River. The following conclusions were drawn concerning public response to the Draft Environmental State­ment:

1. Private Landowner Rights - A high percentage of the respond­ents that preferred Alternative A gave the loss of private landowner rights as their reason for non-designation of the river. They expressed their feelings that a private land­owner is already faced with too many government controls and that additional development constraints are not needed. All private landowners in the study area that responded to the Draft Environmental Statement expressed their preference for Alternative A.

2. Transportation Uevelopment - Several respondents expressed their feelings that additional access routes to the river were not needed. However, some improvement of the existing roads and trails would be desirable if it could be done without increasing the use. There is a concern that in­creased use will degrade the riverine environment.

-77-

3. Recreation Llevelopment - There were few responses indicating a.--need for developing recreation facilities. Most respond­ents pref erred "keeping the river as it is today" serving dispersed recreation users.

4. Multiple Use - Considerable support was expressed for a con­tinuat10"n-of present management under Alternative A. Several respondents indicated they would like to see future options left open for geothermal development, oil and gas exploration, 1nineral extraction and hydroelectric power development.

5. Protection of the River - Respondents that preferred designa­tion and those--rhatdid not used "protection of the river" as their reason. Some were satisfied with the protection pro­vided by current management and ott1ers pref erred Congressional designation to protect the river values. The local public (Verde Valley) expressed a strong preference for continuing current management direction.

6. Wilderness - Wild and Scenic Rivers - Several of the respond­ents that preferred designatior1:-expressed a desire to keep the river, especially the South Segment (river segment B), in a near wilderness state. The major reasons given were to preserve the river for future generations, protect the wild­life and riparian vegetation, and preserve the natural beauty of the area.

7. Increased Hecreation Use - In general, there was a strong opposition to any action that would increase recreation use along the river. The respondents cautioned the Forest Service that increased use could adversely effect the nesting bald eagle population and cause deterioration of the riparian habitat.

8. Protection of the ~ald Eagle - Many of the respondents that preferred designat~stated protection of the eagle as their reason. They felt that designation would add emphasis to management of threatened and endangered species.

9. Flood Control Needs - Considerable opposition to designation was expressed by---verde Valley residents because it would preclude flood control dams along the river. Excessive flooding has occurred during the past three years which re­sulted in soil loss and damage to private property. They expressed a strong desire to keep the option open for con­struction of flood control facilities. See discussion in Appendix C.

10. CAP Water Exchange with SRP - Several agencies and individuals commented they woulCflTkei:o see the option left open to ex­change Central Arizona Project water with Salt River Project

-78-

L_

water. They felt that designation would hinder or prevent an exchange. See discussion in Appendix U.

11. Keep the River As It Is - This statement was made by many respor!cfents that-indicated a preference for Alternative A. In many cases, the same respondent stated they did not want any changes in the river. Statements of this type were difficult to evaluate because of the apparent conflict with the Forest Service selected alternative presented in the Uratt Environmental Impact Statement. Alternative A would permit dams and diversions which could dry up the river during heavy use periods. This could change the entire river environment. On the other hand, designation under Alternatives B, C and D would preserve the free-flowing nature of the river and thus be more responsive to "keeping the river as it is."

Several federal and state agencies and organizations responded to the Uraft Environmental Statement. Their comments and the Forest Service responses to the comments are included in appendix F of this document.

-79-

APPENDIX A

STATE AND FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ----~----- ·-----------·-·---

8ald eagles using the Verde River are federally and state listed as an endangered species. The entire Verde River and one-quarter mile on both sides has been identified as essential habitat for both nesting and wintering bald eagles. Migrant bald eagles use the river for win­tering and the resident bald eagles use it for nesting and rearing young during the winter, spring, and summer periods.

There are only thirteen known active nesting territories in the entire Southwest United States. Two occur in the Verde River study area and two occur in the Sa It Ri verstudy area. The nesting birds tend to require the river environs more than the ~vintering birds. Observations and studies indicate the southern segment of the Verde River is used for nesting and both the northern and southern segments are used for winter foraging. During the winter period, the eagles have been observed as far as eight miles from the river canyon.

Many observers are of the opinion that regeneration of cottonwood and other riparian hardwood trees along the Verde River essentially ceased with the advent of unrestricted cattle grazing about a century ago. The existing trees are nearing the end of their natural life span and attrition by death, floods, etc., is occurring at an alarming rate. This situation is of concern to many wildlife managers and observers who feel that the bald eagle prefers trees to cliff sites for nesting. The same managers and observers are qui ck to point out that cliff sites are unsuitable alternatives to trees because of reduced fledging survival. Trees are also important as streamside foraging perches for capture of fish, the primary dietary item for the eagles.

The Forest Service has been aware of the importance of the riparian habitat along the Verde and other rivers for some time. However, only in comparatively recent times has the probable adverse effect on the bald eagle been of concern. In 1978, the Maricopa Aububon Society con­tacted the Forest Service and expressed their concern with threat of a lawsuit, that the eagle habitat was not being adequately protected and managed. As a result, the Forest Service developed a position statement and proposed to proceed with a short-range program of direct habitat i111provernent in areas crucial to the nesting pairs of eagles, accompanied by a long-term program of range management designed to improve the entire riparian resource on both the Verde and Salt Rivers. The short-range program consists of excluding livestock through fencing of key areas and planting young cottonwood cuttings. The Audubon Society is currently evaluating the proposal. Classification of the study area would enhance its value for bald eagle habitat. Bald eagles require isolation from man's disturbing activities, as well as riverine

-80-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~- --~-~~~~--~--~---

habitat for feeding and rearing young.

Peregrine Falcon - (Falco peregrinus anatum, a federally and ytate endangered species)

The peregrine falcon is not knovrn to nest along the Verde River system. However, migrants have been reported in the state. The falcon is a predator of small to medium size birds. The Verde River is a particu­larly attractive travelway because of the high bird populations associated with the riparian ecosystem. The major portion of the study area has been inventoried and is deemed suitable or marginally suitable. The Tonto National Forest is in the process of declaring their portions of the study area as essential habitat.

Woundfin - (Plagopterus argentissimus)

The woundfin is federally and state listed endangered species of fish. It is a silvery colored minnow that seldom exceeds three inches (75mm) in length. Historic collections of this fish have not been made above the Salt-Verde confluence, however, the woundfin recovery plan (1979) states that there is a good reason to believe that woundfin occurred further upstream on the Verde River. The plan further identifies the Verde River above Horseshoe Reservoir as a prime reintroduction site. Target date for the beginning of transplanting activities is FY 81.

River Otter - (Lutra canadenesis)

The river otter, a large mustellid, is native to the Verde River system. It is now extirpated in the Verde. It is listed by the State of Arizona as a species in danger of being eliminated from Arizona (Group II). The Arizona Game and Fish Department, with the support of the United States Forest Service, is currently considering the feasibility of re-establishing the river otter in the upper Verde River.

Gilberts Skink - (Eumeces gilberti)

A large (8-9 inch) olive or brown-colored lizard. An isolated Arizona

-81-

population is reportedly locdted in the Hassayampa River. There is a possibility this species could be along the Verde in the study area. This species is listed by the state as being in danger of being elim­inated from Arizona (Group II).

This species is listed by the state as a species whose status in Arizona may be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future (Group III). It may be found in the Sonoran Desert Scrub portion of the study area.

Gila Monster - (Heloderma_suspectum)

This unique poisonous lizard of the Southwest is found mainly in the semi-desert grassland portion of the study area. It is listed by the state as a species whose status in Arizona may be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future (Group III).

Black-crowned Night Heron - (Nycticorax nycticorax hoactle)

This medium-sized riparian and water-loving bird has been seen along the Verde River. The state has listed it as a species whose status in Arizona may be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future (Group III).

Zone-tailed Hawk - (Buteo albonotatus)

This medium-sized long-tailed raptor nests in riparian areas along streams in the Southwest. It is another one of the unique raptors of the Southwest. It is listed by the state as a species whose status in Arizona may be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future (Group III).

Black Hawk - (Buteogallus a. anthracinus)

This medium to large-sized bird is another of the riparian nesting raptors that is unique to the Southwest United States. They are known to nest on the Verde River and its tributaries. It is listed by the state as a species whose status in Arizona may be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future (Group III).

Osprey - (Pandion haliaetus carolinensis)

The fish hawk is occasionally seen as a winter visitor along the upper Verde River. It is listed by the state as a species whose status in Arizona may be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future (Group III).

Razorback Sucker - (Xyrauchen texanus)

This large (30-40 inch) fish was once abundant in all large.streams in Arizona including the study area. It is now believed to be extirpated. The study area is assumed to be a potential reintroduction site in the absence of a species recovery plan. This fish is listed by the state

-82-

as a species whose status in Arizona may be in jeopardy in the fore­seeable future (Group III).

Loach Minnow - Q_i arol@_ cobi_tus )_

This small 2-3 inch minnow is a rifle inhabitant of small to medium rivers in the Gila River Basin. They are thought to be extinct in the upper Verde River. The state lists it as a species whose status in Arizona may be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future. The study area is a possible future transplant site.

Spikedace - (Meda fulgida)

This small fish, although once widespread in the Gila River System, now exhibits a very reduced distribution, with populations occuring in Southeastern Arizona and in the Verde River. Within the Verde River the fish is known to occur only near the river bridge on Forest Road #354 and the Packard Place.

Following is a list of birds, reptiles, and fish that probably occur in the study area. The state lists them as species of special interest because of limited distribution in Arizona (Group IV).

Mississippi kite - Ictinia mississippiensis Arizona mountain kingsnake - Lampropeltis pyromelana Narrow-headed water snake - Natrrxr-Uflj)UnCfatus~~ Round-tailed chub - Gila robusta seminuda

-83-

APPENLJIX B

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANTS ---VERDE RIVER

The study segments of the Verde River are relatively inaccessible and virtually unsurveyed for threatened and endangered plant species. How­ever, some plant species that have been nominated for Federal protection are suspected to exist in the study areas.

Some of these plant species are adopted to the type of micro-environinents created by the mist and high humidity from fast, free-flowing, cascading waters. Steep, dark, inaccessible habitats found along these yet unmod­ified waters afford remnant islands of near pristine habitat conditions. The habitat serves as a final retreat for some plant species trying to survive in a harsh, ever-changing environment. These habitats and plants cannot be sustained or duplicated with placid bodies of water.

The existance or non-existance of currently listed threatened and en­dangered plant species within the study area has not been verified. Des­ignation of the river is not expected to have an effect on the plants if they do exist. Therefore, it was decided that consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was not necessary.

The following information is based upon collection records, literature review, and probable habitat comparison:

List of Plants That May Occur Within The Proposed LJesignation Area}:_/

Nominated For Federal Protection 2/ _P_la_n_t~S~p_e_c_ie_s~~~~~~_C_a_t_eg~o_r~y_l 11 Category 2 ii Erigeron lobatus Perff.Yfe-saxicola Graptopetalum rusbyi Agave arizonica Agave toumeyana

var. bella Eriogonum ripleyi Eriogonum capillare Cheilanthes pringlei Cimicifuga arizonica

x x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

1/ Source: Jerry LJavis, Tonto N.F.; Reggie Fletcher, R.O. 'I/ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Review of Plant Taxa

for Listing as Endangered and Threatened Species, Federal Register, LJecember 15, 1980, Part 4, Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

3/ ii

Category 1 - Data supports listing as Endangered or Threatened. C~tegory 2 - Current data indicates probable appropriateness of 11 sting.

-84-

APPENDIX C

STATUS OF FLOOD CONTROL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY PROPOSALS ALONG THE VERDE RIVER

Central Arizona Water Control Study (CAWCS) }:_/

The CAWCS is a study under the direction of the U.S. Water and Power Resources Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the study is to identify a preferred pl an to reduce flood damage along the Salt and Gila Rivers and provide regulatory storage of water for the Central Arizona area. The Verde River is a major contributor to the Salt River and thus becomes a key element in the study.

The study is currently being conducted in three stages. Stage I was completed in August, 1979. During this stage, one of the four control elements (actions) being considered for the Verde River was dropped. The Tangle Creek Dam was eliminated because of geotechnical problems including hot springs deep under the dam site and unsuitable foundation material for the left abuttment. The remaining three control elements modified Horseshoe Dam, Cliff Dam and New Bartlet Dam were carried forward to the next stage.

Stage II was completed in November-December, 1980. It consisted of a "screening" process to select the best option of the remaining three elements. The Cliff Dam was selected for the Verde River because of moderate costs and environmental impacts.

The next step was to formulate concepts using the systems (elements) selected during the screening process. Only those concepts that affect the Verde River will be discussed in the following text.

Concept I: options is to construct or enlarge a single structure on either the Salt or Verde River. Should the Cliff Dam be selected as the pre­ferred structure, it would provide flood control and additional amount of water conservation space for CAP regulatory storage. The Cliff Dam would replace the Horseshoe Dam. The water level eleva­tion based on the additional CAP storage would be 1,991 feet. The flood control level would be 2,043 feet with the crest at 2,090 feet.

Concept II: Salt and Verde Control - Under this concept, control of both the Verde and Salt Rivers would be obtained through construction of a single structure at the Verde/Salt confluence or a combination of two structures, one on each river. Should the Cliff Dam be selected as one of the structures, it would be designed multi-pur­posed including flood control and regulatory storage. The Cliff Dam

J:/ FACTBOOK, Public Forums, November-December, 1980, Central Arizona Water Control Study, No. 271-0915.

-85-

would replace the Horseshoe Dam. The water level elevation for CAP storage would be 1,983 feet. The flood control level would be 2,062 feet with the crest at 2,110 feet.

The CAWCS is currently entering Stage III of the study process. The construction of the Cliff Dam is still a viable alternative under both Concepts I & II.

In summary, it should be noted that neither of the two dams will back water into the Sheep Bridge - Tangle Creek area except during periods of extreme flooding. When this occurs, it will be for very short periods.

Relationship Between Safety of Dams and CAWCS

The Inflow Design Floods (IUF) 2/ for the Salt and Verde Rivers were re­cently reanalyzed. The figures-changed dramatically. The new Inflow Design Floods currently being considered are nearly triple the old ones.

The importance of this new standard is that if the Inflow Design Floods were to occur, the dams along the Salt and Verde Rivers would be over­topped by 10-23 feet. As the dams are now, a safety problem would occur long before the IUF level is reached. A study is currently underway to determine what actions can and should be taken.

In one sense, the Safety of Dams study and the CAWCS are completely separ­ate studies. But it is also clear that they are closely inter-related since they might potentially involve the same structure. If, for example, a new dam on the Verde River for flood control and regulatory storage were constructed, it could eliminate the safety danger to Bartlett and downstream development.

Unfortunately, the two programs are not on the same time schedule. Wait­ing for the Safety of Uams information could delay the Central Arizona Water Control Study three to four months; and as it is, many people are already upset with the length of time involved. Instead, the possibility of Safety of Dam solutions has been taken into consideration in the alter­native systems that have been developed in Stage II of CAWCS. In addi­tion, some systems may be carried forward into Stage III which would have been eliminated if only regulatory storage and flood control were factors.

'!:_/ Inflow Design Floods (IUF) is a standard set for the amount of water which a dam can withstand either by containing it or passing it on downstream. The standard is established by computing th.e maximum possible runoff, in peak flow, that could ever occur in the watershed under extreme climatological and meteorological conditions.

-86-

- - - ----------------

In 1980, Yavapai County requested the Arizona Department of Water Resources to explore the possibility of constructing a flood control dam in the general vicinity of where Sycamore Creek joins the Verde River north of Clarkdale. The study is currently being conducted by Cella Barr and Evans and Associates of Tucson, Arizona.

The report has not been released. However, preliminary information indicates the construction of a dam at that location may not be feasible due to economics.

The U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey provided the follow­ing information concerning potential waterpower and reservoir sites in the study area. The responsible local authorities have provided assur­ance that all but one of the proposals are inactive. The one exception is the Clarkdale reservoir site discussed under Verde River Flood ---Control Project.

Clarkdale reservoir site was studied by the Bureau of Reclamation. A 240-foot-high dam located on the Verde River in Section 17, Tl7N, R3E, G&SRM, would provide a storage capacity of 150,000 acre-feet at a water surface altitude of 3,775 feet. The reservoir would inundate portions of land in unsurveyed Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, and 9 to 13, inclusive, T17N, R2E, Sections 32, 34, and 3~, T18N, R2E, and Sections 7 and 8, and unsurveyed Sections 17 and 18, Tl7N, R3E, G&SRM.

Gittings waterpower site was studies by the Geological Survey. A 200-foot-high dam located on the Verde River in Section 28, Tl7N, R3E, G&SRM, would provide a storage capacity of 100,000 acre-feet at a water surface altitude of 3,635 feet. The reservoir would inundate portions of land in unsurveyed Sections 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13, T17N, R2E, and Sections 7, 8, 16, 21, 22, 27, and 28, and unsurveyed Sections 17, 18, and 20, T17N, R3E, G&SRM. This site has a potential installed capacity of 2.7 MW.

Camp Verde waterpower site was studied by the Geological Survey. A 210-foot-high dam located on the Verde River in unsurveyed Sec­tion 1, T12N, R5E, G&SRM, would provide a storage capacity of 478,000 acre-feet. The reservoir would inundate land along the Verde River below an altitude of 3,100 feet in Sections 13, 24, and 25, T14N, R4E, unsurveyed Sections 1, 2, and 3, T12N, R5E, Sections 5 to 9, inclusive, Sections 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, and 28, and Sections 33 to 36, inclusive, Tl3N, R5E, and Sections 29 to

-87-

32, inclusive, T14N, R5E, G&SRM. This site has a power potential of 6.9 MW.

Arizona Hydraulic Power Company waterpower project would consist of a storage reservoir, diversion dam, two conduits, and three powerhouses. A 165-foot-high dam located on the Verde River in unsurveyed Section 30, T12N, R6E, G&SRM, would provide a storage capacity of 35,660 acre-feet at a water surface altitude of 2,900 feet. The reservoir would inundate land along the Verde River in unsurveyed Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 25, Tl2N, R5E, unsurveyed Section 36, T12 1/2 N, R5E, and unsurveyed Sections 6, 7, 19, and 30, Tl2N, R6E, G&SRM. Powerplant No. 3 would be located directly below the storage dam. Powerplant No. 1 would consist of a 20-foot-hiqh diversion dam located on the Verde River in unsurveyed Section 14, TllN, R6E, G&SRM, a 21,084-foot-lonq conduit, and a powerhouse located in unsurveyed Section 36, TllN, R6E, G&SRM. A 36,000-foot-long conduit would lead from the tail race of Powerplant No. 1 to Powerplant No. 2 locatd in unsurveyed Section 34, TlON, R6E, G&SRM. This waterpower development has a potential capacity of 6.4 MW.

Other Proposals

The following proposals are not located within the study area; however, they could have an effect on designation.

Chino Valley Coal-fired Generating Plant site is located in or near Big Chino Wash, which is a major tributary to the Verde River (Sec­tions 26 and 27, Tl9N, R4W, G&SRM). A power plant requires water source - in this instance, groundwater. The Verde River head­waters are primarily fed by springs that are thought to result from a groundwater aquifer which undlerlies Big Chino Wash. Groundwater pumping would probably have a noticeable effect on Verde River flows especially in the north portion of study Segment A.

The possibility of developing the coal-fired plant was brought to our attention by Salt River Project (SRP) in a letter dated July 31, 1979. To our knowledge, no action is currently being taken on the proposal.

Verde River/Tangle Creek Confluence Potential Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Facility Site was identified in 1978 by Salt River Project (SRP). The site was dropped from consideration late in 1978 when on-site geological studies showed the area to be unsuitable for construction of either a dam or the necessary underground facilities. The findings were substantiated by the Central Arizona Water Control Study recommendations that the area be dropped as an alternative dam site because of unsuitable geology. SRP indicated the pump storage proposal is probably dead for this entire river area; however, they further stated that other sites probably could be found that are suitable for smaller flood control structures.

-88-

* CHINO VALLEY COAL-FIRED

GENERATING PLANT SITE

V E R D E PROPOSED VERDE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT

*INDIAN RESERVATION

e PRESCOTT

N

t

CLARKDALE RESERVOIR SITE GITTINGS WATERPOWER SITE

OTTONWOOD

YAVAPAI-APACHE J PINE INDIAN RESERVATION

* e CAMP VERDE ~ CAMP VERDE STREAM GAUG~ /

CAMP VERDE WATERPOWER SITE

ARIZONA HYDRAULIC POWER CO. WATERPOWER PROJECT SITE

River

PAYSON e TONTO-APACHE *

INDIAN RESERVATION

HYDROELECTRIC PUMPED STORAGE FACILITY SITE

Sheep Bridge TANGLE CREEK DAM SITE

HORSESHOE DAM

BARTLETT DAM

PHOENIX e

FLOOD CONTROL/HYDROELECTRIC MAP

- ·--------------

APPENDIX 0

Central Arizona Project (CAP)

The Central Arizona Project will bring water to Phoenix, and eventually to Tucson, via aqueducts from the Colorado River. Since a number of states are dependent on water from the Colorado River, the amount of water which can be taken from the river under normal conditions is strictly prescribed by law. However, at times extra water is available when the Colorado River reservoirs are essentially full or spilling. During these periods, CAP would be able to withdraw water.

As stated on page 22 of this report, northern Arizona communities, in­cluding Indian tribes located along the Verde River, have been tentatively granted a share of CAP water. It is likely that this allocation of CAP water will be effectuated through water exchanges with the Salt River Project (SRP). '!:._/

On August 8, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior made proposed alloca­tions of CAP water for Indian use. The proposed allocations included three tribes which could take water from the Upper Verde or its tribu­taries:

Yavapai-Prescott-----------------500 acre-feet per year Yavapai-Apache (Camp Verde}------1,200 acre-feet per year Tonto-Apache---------------------110 acre-feet per year

In addition, the Arizona Water Commission (AWC) in 1977 recommended that the Secretary of the Interior allocate CAP water to five municipal en­tities along the Upper Verde River. Prescott, Cottonwood and Camp Verde could divert water directly from the Verde River above or in the study area. The other two (Pine and Payson) could divert water from the East Verde or its tributary, Pine Creek. The AWC recommendations are cur­rently being revised, but the October 1980 Department of Water Resources staff recommendations for the five municipalities increase from an ag­gregate of 4,533 acre-feet per year in 1985 to 18,396 acre-feet per year in 2034.

It is proposed by the Water and Power Resources Services that the city of Prescott and Yavapai-Prescott tribe receive up to 8,859 acre-feet of water by year 2084. This could be diverted directly from the river considering the minimum average daily flow at the Paulden stream gauge f:_/ is 15 cubic feet per second (see page 21 of report). The average

}j United States Department of Interior, Water and Power Resources Services letter dated ~ovember 18, 1980.

f:_/ See Flood Control/Hydroelectric map in Appendix C for location of stream gauges.

-89-

daily diversion rate would be over 12 cubic feet per second. This could result in removal of aproximately 80 percent of the water which would elevate stream temperature and reduce the saturated level for dis­solved oxygen. The continual diversion would have a significant adverse effect on downstream fisheries.

The existance of a reservoir site along the upper reaches of the Verde River to serve Prescott area is a probability. The size of the storage facility would depend on the needed delivery method and the schedule of water use. It is possible to design a reservoir that would collect water during peak flows, deliver it when needed for domestic and agri­cultural purposes and provide for a water release that would support downstream fisheries.

The proposed CAP allocation for Camp Verde area is approximately 5036 acre-feet of water by year 2034. To provide this amount of water, a direct diversion of over seven cubic feet per second would be required daily. It is doubtful that the water will be available for direct diversion considering the recorded minimum flow at the gauging station below Camp Verde is 13 cubic feet per second and Prescott area's di­version would be located upstream. A high percentage of the water that passes through the Camp Verde gauge is seepage back into the river from irrigation use. It is obvious that if the CAP water is to be used dur­ing the growing season (five-to-six-month period), the demand would be over 14 cubic feet per second and require some type of water storage facility.

The Pine-Payson area diversions frorn East Verde or its tributary, Pine Creek, could be made with minimum impacts on the flow in the Verde River. It would be desirable to specHy a minimum flow between the Camp Verde area diversions and the confluence of East Verde with the Verde River to maintain the existing fisheries and riparian habitat.

In summary, it appears that some type of reservoir in River Segment A would be needed to provide the proposed CAP/SRP water to the Verde Valley area during the active irrigation period. The facility could be designed to meet both the Prescott area and Camp Verde area needs and at the same time maintain the free-flowing characteristics of River Segment B.

-90-

APPENDIX E

List of Preparers

Portions of this study were prepared by the Statewide Rivers Coordinating Team. The members were:

James F. Rathbun, Regional Coordinator, R-3 Philip M. Gilman, Statewide Coordinator, Tonto National Forest Arthur H. Clinchy, Public Information Officer, Tonto National Forest Charles L. Reddinq, Recreation and Lands Staff, Apache-Sitgreaves

National Forest Vearl Haynes, Land Management Planner, Apache-Sitgreaves National

Forest H. Dewayne Morgan, Land Management Planner, Prescott National Forest Richard M. Harris, Lands Staff, Coconino National Forest

The Interdisciplinary Team members for the Verde River Study are:

H. Dewayne Morgan, (Team Leader), Forester, Prescott National Forest Philip M. Gilman, (Member), Land Management Planner, Tonto National

Forest Richard M. Harris, (Member), Lands Staff, Coconino National Forest

Specific input and/or review for the study was provided by the following:

Washington Office

Charles R. Hartgraves, Director, Land Management Planning Roy W. Feuchter, Director, Recreation Management Robert H. Tracy, Director, Watershed Management Melvin L. Yuhas, Acting Director, Lands Douglas W. Shenkyr, Land Management Planninq

Regional Office

Donald A. Renton, Director, Land Management Planning William D. Zeedyk, Director, Wildlife Management Don D. Seaman, Director, Range Management Stanley Randall, Program Planning and Budget

Prescott National Forest

Donald H. Bolander, Forest Supervisor Emilio Lujan, District Ranger, Chino Ranger District Richard Rhea, District Ranger, Verde Ranger District Charles Snyder, Forest Engineer Thomas Dix, Fire, Timber, and Watershed Staff John Bohning, Range and Wildlife Staff Bruce Lamb, Recreation and Lands Staff Robert Anderson, Hydrologist

-91-

Prescott Natioinal Forest(Continued)

Carl Frounfelker, Wildlife Biologist Neil Dickey, Geologist Harlow Yaeger, Para-professional Archeologist James Shores, Forester Donald Ranne, Forester Vernon Laney, Range Technician

Coconino National Forest

Michael A. Kerrick, Forest Supervisor Robert Gillis, District Ranger, Sedona Ranger Uistrict Don Howard, District Ranger, Beaver Creek Ranger District Jack Utley, Timber Staff Loyd Barnett, Watershed and Soils Staff Don Freeman, Recreation and Lands Staff Bill Buck, Fire Staff Marlin Johnson, Land Management Planner Gerald Mundell, Range and Wildlife Staff Jerry McConnell, Forest Engineer Peter Pilles, Archeologist Thomas Holden, Landscape Architect Bill Norrid, College Student Gary Bell, Fisheries Biologist Patrick Jackson, Hydrologist Howard Hudak, Wildlife Biologist

Tonto National Forest

James L. Kimball, Forest Supervisor Gerald Tower, District Ranger, Cave Creek Ranger District Hugh Thompson, District Ranger, Payson Ranger District William Pint, Range and Wildlife Staff Walter Taylor, Recreation and Land Staff Ernest Mccrary, Watershed, Timber, and Fire Staff Larry Forbis, Wildlife Biologist Jerry Davis, Wildlife Biologist Gary Holder, Range Conservationist Rich Martin, Hydrologist Ted Oliver, Landscape Architect Scott Wood, Archeologist

APPENDIX F

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

AND FOREST SERVICE RESPONSE

Written comments on the Draft Environmental Statement were separated by Alternative Preference. Each alternative section is organized as follows:

1. Names and locations of respondents a. State agency b. County c. City d. Organization e. Corporation f. Congressional Delegates g. Individuals

2. letters that need a response

3. Example letters that do not need a response*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Alternative A .................................................... F- 94 Alternative B •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• F-113 Alternative C ............................................•....... F-115 Alternative D .................................................... F-128 Alternative C or D Plus 10.5 Tangle Creek Section •••••••••••••••• F-133 Alternative Preference Unknown •.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• F-142

*Due to the large number of responses received, it was de­cided to summarize the contents in Section VII, pages 72 through 79. Only those responses that require Forest Serv­ice comment and letters from Federal, State, and County organizations and Congressional delegates are reproduced in this appendix.

-93-

~t_~nativ_~-~ (Oppose Designation)

Arizona State Land Department

Gila County Board of Supervisors

Verde Natural Resource Conservation District

Coconino Natural Resource Conservation District

Phelps Dodge Corporation

Dashney, Steele & Jensen, Inc., Consulting Engineers

Congressman Bob Stump

Karen Tavasci, Clarkdale 86324 Jim Bergstrom, Cottonwood 86326 Joe Harrcock, Cottonwood 86326 Mr. & Mrs. Jay Roseberry, Thatcher Hans Odelberg, Camp Verde 86322 A. J. Mackey, Camp Verde 86322 Harold Avery, Camp Verde 86322 Herschel Lewis, Lake Montezuma James Sheltrow, Lake Montezuma Mr./Mrs. O.D. Arrowsmith, Mesa 85203 Jo Thomson, Sun Lakes Frank Macek, Sun City 85375 Marlin Ranck, Lake Montezuma 86342 Cleo Tissaw, Cottonwood 86326 Jerry Torstveit, Phoenix 85006 J. L. Varga, Sun City 85351 Doyt Hirl, Camp Verde 86322 Mrs. R. E. Hargus, Camp Verde Diana Ward, Camp Verde 86322 Paul Webb, Rimrock 86335 Imogene Heiskell, Camp Verde Phyllis Teoque, Camp Verde Evelyn Renner, Cottonwood Teri Owen, Camp Verde 86322 Florence Gonzales, Camp Verde W. J. Raithel, Scottsdale Shirley Barnes, Camp Verde Betty Lovett, Camp Verde 86322 Marjorie Lacey, Camp Verde Anna Sawers, Camp Verde 86322 Loft Hollamon, Camp Verde Harold Friedman, Camp Verde Mr./Mrs. Lester Boren, Camp Verde

Clarence Finch, Camp Verde 86322 William Jik, Sedona 86336 William Thompson, Dewey 86327 Lois Hall, Camp Verde 86322 Merlyn Talbot, Camp Verde 86322 Florence Mackey, Camp Verde 86322 W. P. Meyer, Lake Montezuma 86432 Betty Lewis, Lake Montezuma 86432 Neil Landers (no town) Mike Foree (no town)

William Foree (no town) Edwin Wangberg, Sun City 85375 Larry Biller, Lake Montezuma Mr./Mrs. Geo. Tissaw, Cottonwood Betty Foree, Tempe 85283 Warren Carlson, Cottonwood 86326 Lorene Weed, Camp Verde 86322 Kelly Dunham, Prescott 86301 Pete Peterson, Prescott 86301 Virginia Webb, Rimrock 86335 Bud Teaque, Camp Verde 86322 Gene Hollamon, Camp Verde 86322 Paul Renner, Cottonwood 86326 0. E. Gonzales, Camp Verde 86322 Mary Denletman, Cottonwood 86326 Henry Skill, Lake Montezuma 86342 Joe Neff, Camp Verde 86322 Craig Lacey, Camp Verde 86322 W. F. Lacey, Camp Verde 86322 Paul Sawers, Camp Verde 86322 Dewayne Barnes, Camp Verde 86322 Pat Friedman, Camp Verde 86322 Dolly Bliss, Camp Verde 86322

-94-

Alternative A -------

Virginia Zellnes, Camp Verde Bob Barkes, Camp Verde 86322 Harold Callahan, Camp Verde Wayne Liuth, Camp Verde Dr./Mrs. J.F. Moon, Tucson 85719 Wayne Greer, Camp Verde 86322 Mrs. C.L. Aston, Cottonwood James Giles, Sedona 86336 Dorothy Carlson, Cottonwood Mr./Mrs. Wm. Moore, Camp Verde Elaine Lee, Camp Verde Minnie Maeck, Camp Verde Kenneth Wade, Cottonwood 86326 Marion Moon, Sun City 85375 Gary Hall, Tempe 85282 Valerie Harroun, Mesa 85202 Robert Harrow, Mesa 85202 Glenora Hackett, Cottonwood Charles Mead, Cottonwood 86326 Carroll lJintelman, Cottonwood Gary Green, Phoenix 85021 K. A. Green, Phoenix 85021 Mike & Wanda Purinton, Camµ Verde Wilson Eldridge, Sun City 85375 Jim French, Camp Verde 86322 Leonard Staff, Tempe 85282 Nook & Uonna Scott, Phoenix, 85031 Mr./Mrs. W. Miller, Camp Verde Arnold Abbey, Camp Verde Harry McCracken, Camp Verde Mona & Norman Rask, Camp Verde Charles Pettijohn, Camp Verde O.J. Blewer, Camp Verde Candace Murdock, Camp Verde Bob Jackman, Prescott 86301 Elizabeth Tedford, Rimrock Rosa Gates, Camp Verde Allen Owen, Camp Verde Mr./Mrs. lJavid Wallin, Camp Verde J. H. Scroggins, Cottonwood 86326 Betty Scroggins, Cottonwood Arthur Holmgren, Cottonwood Clinton Self, Cottonwood F. D. Dosips, Cottonwood Inez Neff, Camp Verde A. E. Mahan, Cottonwood Wilfred Kinch, Cottonwood Mr./Mrs. Donald Scarsdale, Phoenix Mrs. Lyle, Price, Cottonwood Joe Kinnelbieu, Cottonwood

David Gipe, Yuma 85364 Imogene Callahan, Camp Verde Jon Huskell, Camp Verde 86322 Melanie Myers, Camp Verde Doris Inman, Cottonwood 86326 Don & Fran Murdock, Camp Verde Thelma Giles, Sedona 86336 Theodore Morris, Camp Verde Mr./Mrs. S.J. Steven, Sedona Randi Campbell, Fredonia 86022 Johnny Lee, Camp Verde Russell & Dorothy Felton, Camp Verde Mary Ann Hokes, Camp Verde John W. Moon, Sun City 85375 Carole Kelley, Phoenix Mr./Mrs. Walt Jenkins, Phoenix 85029 Robert Haugh, Camp Verde Myrtle Mead, Cottonwood 86326 Nels Peterson, Cottonwood 86326 Geo. W. Tignor, Cornville 86325 Henry Sirnonsgaard, Cornville 86325 Henry Golla, Scottsdale 85254 Gene Bullock, Mesa 85201 Janet Eldridge, Sun City 85375 Amy Mihailow, Mesa 85207 Gordon & Joan Huffaker, Page 86040 Elizabeth Foree, Mesa 85201 Irma Johnson, Camp Verde Jesse Reeves, Camp Verde Dwight Reeves, Camp Verde Lavonna McCracken, Camp Verde Laura Blewer, Carnp Verde E. Jodek, Camp Verde Steve Murdock, Camp V~rde Truman Hall, Camp Verde William Gates, Camp Verde Jeff Dutt, Camp Verde Morgan Harper, Camp Verde John Edge, Camp Verde Darvin & Vivian Weitcamp, Camp Verde Mrs. S.E. Gerken, Cottonwood 86326 Ralph Blackburn, Cottonwood Nancy Self, Cottonwood J. R. Stevenson, Cottonwood Dave Perkins, Clarkdale 86324 O.H. McDaniel, Cottonwood Ruth Harvel, Camp Verde

85019 L.R. Nickerson, Cottonwood

-95-

November 19, 1980

~rit'1nn

,jtnte 1Jlnnll ~epnrtment

1•U.WEST i"tJA.MS

PHoe;NI)(, i"RIZDN-'I •sDD7

6 0 2 ~ 'ls !I

USDA - Forest Service Prescott National Forest P.O. Box 2549 Prescott, AZ. 86302

Gentlemen:

In regard to your recent draft on the "Verde River Environmental Statement and Wild and Scenic River Study", wt:> wish to make the following comments and observations:

l)

2)

As noted, the Verde River watershed has been petitioned for adjud­ication under the jurisdiction of the State of Arizona Superior Court (Maricopa County). The statement in the report that certain "water rights were lost and the right to divert forfeited", is questionable, since such findings of fact can only be determined by a court of law within the context of the adjudication process.

The statement, " ... since Salt River Project presently claims most of the water, it is doubtful that any additional diversions will occur 11

, is misleading since the State of Arizona, through the State Land Departmentt has claims to water rights on the Verde River watershed which have not as yet been determined or quantified. Designation of any portion of the river as 11wi ld and scenic::n cou1d adversely impact those claims prior to the adjudication.

3) Since the report states that 11 it is impossible to determine what effect this (CAP) exchange of water rights will have on the rivP: 11

,

wt' question how an appropriate evaluation of the impact of a ·,;i ld and scenic river designation on water rights and uses can be madP at this time.

In summary, it would appear that the proposed designation of the Verde l' Lvt>t,

or any portion ther<'of, as a wild and scenic river is premature at this Liml!. Until this watershed has been adjudicated, and the water rights of the Statf• of Arizona, including claims to CAP water, bec•n fixed by court decree, the State Land Department must protest any proposcil which may adversely impact ~he claims of the State.

Your consider at ion in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

"';:::-?!,;u0~ e T. FaT!1;1 ate Land Cormnissioner

Forest Service Response J..Q_ Arizona State L~~_Q_l1J_~~11~~_!_l_~s ~_<;>_ri~i~enls:

1. The statement "other diversions have been made in the past, but through non-use, Wdler rights were Jost and the right to divert forfeited" was deleted on page 21.

2. fhe statement "Howe~er~ since Sall River Project presently clairns m~st at the water, 1t is doubtful that any additional diversions w111 occur 11 was deleted on page 22.

3. We agree that it is impossible to determine what effects a possible CAP ex~hange uf water rights would have on the Verde River. Until such t~rne the actual allocations have been made and delivery methods determin~d, we can only s~eculate as to the possible results. See the sect 1 on on Ccntra l Arizona ProJect (CAP) in Appendix u.

11-24-80

P;escott rht i c~:-.:il_ F~T'C.:: .J\;r')(-;!'Vi '00!' PG finx 25''+9 ?re~co~t, AZ 26302

l C": ct tLe ri ·,'er

~r. '"J'1pc::t o:' H·lter"'1tivc A, c~lll_::a f::-r 1 c·,vl.''(! i+-t: ":cu-1,>i!"'2.~.- :<s tl ey Jre r.0 1.·!. i,:-r:c~nt :-co11l1ti()

:ye .--,dr,r'•Jnte.

cst.1cl\ fo:· co.: 1 1 v tr

r·" 1 or·"'l ty'>e r:

a:.

tr·c er:fnrcr.::v:er, 1

::Fr S c•r,": ''" 1 '\ '1

rorest Ser vie_~ ~sponsl' 1._o_ ~-~- Uobyns' ~q_111n_~nts:

0 -iti-.C·"'.S tLo ocd

(' r· "u~ther (' t i~e 1

New developments that dre not compatible witl1 the Wild and Scenic R1ver designation Hould Ue µroh1b1teci, however, designation would not affect existing activities such as a<Jriculture and cattle raising.

• November 22, 1980

·1 -FORESTSERVICE Prescott t:atio. r.d Fmst

?·-;~0.,tf

NOV 2'.)1%0

r~(-~;_~~~~~1~U GARY A. OASHNEY, P.E. TRAVIS C. STEELE, P.E. LYNN H JENSEN. R.LS.

Dashnev. Steele & Jensen, Inc., Consulting Engineers

Mr. Donald H. Bolander Forest Supervisor Prescott National Forest P.O. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Dear Mr. Bolander:

In response to the Verde River Draft Environmental Statement & Wild & Scenic River Study, we are submitting our recent report on the Salt River study since we feel that all of the contents are applicable in principle to the Verde River study. We see the following differences in the two areas under study:

1. Due to the fact that a greater portion of the Verde River is accessible to a greater number of Recreation seekers than the proposed study reach of the Salt River, we recognize need for a higher level of environmental protection of river qualities on parts of the river.

2. However, Horseshoe and Bartlett storage dams were not designed for flood control in their original concept and consequently they would be very prone to overflow with possible failure during a major flood condition and therefore must be protected from this potential catastrophe.

3. To safeguard the above event from occurring, a flood control dam would be required somewhere on the Verde River between the Childs Power Plant and approximately one mile below the junction at the East Verde.

4. The major reason for the uncertainty in the location for a flood control dam on the Verde River in this general location is that there is not an ideally situated dam site with good geologic and engineering qualities. Additionally, contribution from Fossil Creek needs to be better assessed.

5. Nevertheless, large flows from the Verde River watershed and the great potential of flows from a major event (100-500 year frequency storm) necessitates a flood control dam at some point along this portion of the Verde River located in the upper watershed area.

6. Therefore, this portion of the Verde River IT'Ust remain withdrawn at all costs for the purposes of future flood contror-facilities, at least until all study of the area for such facilities has been exhausted.

503 WEST MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 1073 • PAYSON, ARIZONA 85541 • PHONE 474-5313 3Q15 EAST THOMAS ROAD • SUITE 10 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 • PHONE .957.7920

Page 2.

7. Failure to accont11odate for this future need carries all of the same ramifications and implications as outlined in our Salt River report. We urge you to heed all of the precautionary statements stressed in this report prior to making a decision which could eliminate viable alterna­tives to an even greater problem to the people of central Arizona.

8. We ~here'.ore highly rec?"'"end the postponement of any decision on des1gnat1on of any portion of the Verde River until the full flood control needs concerning the upper watershed of the Verde River can be assessed. Areas further upstream from the aforementioned area such as Camp Verde to Cottonwood may also require such facilities.

Sincerely yours,

,~l . - /.r-; ' ~r:!:<-t L 1:,,1 1 Ld,, ,,,,,, ;/;.? // Phillip Anderson, Geologist / ··-

For~st Service Response to Dashney, Steele & Jensen, Inc., Consulting Engrneers 1 comments: ---- -

We have discussed your concerns with the Corp of Engineers Water and Power Resources Service and Central /\rizona Water Cont;o1 Study {CAWCS) personnel. There seems to be general agreement that some type of flood control measures are needed to protect the Phoenix Valley. However, there appears to be several more viable options to control the flood waters than to construct a dam above Horseshoe Reservoir. See the November-December Central Arizona Water Control Study Factbook No. 271-0915.

~oncerning the safety of Horseshoe Oam, we have been told that it 1? ~sua l ly more economical to modify the existing dam or take other ac~10n_ rather than construct a new dam upstream. The Cliff Dam, which. 1 s the only proposal being considered for the Lower Verde River at this time (CAWCS), takes into consideration the safety of Horse­shoe Dam to the extent.the existing earthen dam would be breached. The water currently berng stored for SRP purposes would be held in the new C 11 ff Reservoir. See CAWCS section in Appendix c.

.JEKEL & HOWARD

AfTORN£YS AT LAW

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 8';.2':11

Mr. H. Dewayne Morgan Forest Planner Prescott Nationul Forest P.O. !lox 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

November 28 1 1980

RE: Verde River Draft Environment~l Statement and Wild and Scenic River Study

Dear Mr. Morgan;

Enclosed please find ou.r Position Statement prepared owners of Brown

This Position on behulf of Dr. and Mrs. John W. Moon, Springs Ranch, Yavapai County, Arizona. stutement has been prepared by our firm in subject Draft Statement and River Study.

response to the

Please direct any comments or inquiry regarding the enclosed Position Statement to the undersigned.

BJR/br Enclosure

Sincerely yours,

JEKEL & HOWARD Attorneys at Law

cc: Dr. and Mrs. John W. Moon with enclosures

POSITION STATEMElfi'~~o1: DiL l\ND MRS. JOHN \L MOON

This statement is prepared in response to the Dratt Environmental TmpucL Slate11u.:nt on the Verde River. We pro-pos1_· that this slatement cont<lins dssurnptions and conclusions that have no basis in fact, or were ctrrived at based upon in­complete data and review technique::> that should be thoroughly rc-ex~mined betorc a final draft of the statement is published. Specificully, the infonndtion dlld. an.ilysis presented in this statement do nol adeciucttely support tl1e conclusion that Alter­native c .is the preferable alternative. Further, t>election of Alterncttive C docs not ndvnnce lhe purpose of The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, und~r which aulhorizatio11 for the preparation ctnd publication of lhis st..1tument is prescribed. Therefore, it is our position and rcc-·or~unenrJation thctt more detailed and Ll1uruuqh dd.ta. be- gt1thcred ~rnd included in the statement rc­<Jdrdin(_J the impLl.ct CJ! thj~; propo::;1:d J.lt<~rnutives in the st.:itc­rneril on the r1pd1·i,1n. IL1biL1L JI! the Jusiyn...:ited section of the Verde River th~L is the subject of this study. We believe such a r~view ~nd analysis wj.11-show thit Alternative A should be dPsignated as the pref0rrc-d altcTnat1vc in the final draft of the EnvironmentcJ.l .St.:1tement submitted to Congress.

'l'l!E WILD l\ND SCENIC RIVERS ACT

'rhe purpo~e of The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 is lo institute a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System ''to preserve selected rivers or sections thereof in their free­flowing condition, to protect. the woter quul ity of such rivers tlnd to [ul[ill other vital t1atiunal conservaLion purposes."

'l'he Act further provided that the NaLionaJ. Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall be cof.1,prised of rivers:

1. Authorized for inclusion by Act of Conqresti;

2. Designated by an act of legislature in the state or slates through which the river flows that are found by the Secretary of the Interior, upon ap­plication to the Govc:i-:ior of the state or states concerned, to meet the· criteria established in the Act.

A wild, scenic or recreatlonal rivc·r urea is ellgible if it possesses one or more of the va.lucs described above in the purpose of this Act:_.

©

In 1978, Section S(a) of the Act, which prescribes rivers designated for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, was amended to include the following paragraph:

"(63) VERDE, ARIZ. The main stem from the Prescott National Forest boundary near Paulden to the vicinity of Table Mountain, approximately 14 miles above Horseshoe Resevoir, except for the segment not included in the national forest between Clarkdale and Camp Verde, North segment."

Section 4 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed in analyzing whether the proposed river should be included in the National Wild and scenic Rivers System.

"Each proposal shall be accompanied by a report, including maps and illustrations, showing among other things the area included within the pro­posal, the characteristics which make the area a worthy addition to the system, the current status of the landownership and use in the area, the reaso~ably foreseeable potential use~ uf the land and water which would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the national wild and scenic rivers system ... "(emphasis added)

It is clearly the intention of Congress that the focus of the Draft Environment Statement of a river, or section of a river, proposed for designation into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System should be how inclusion of the subject river or river section will further the purposes set forth in the Act as described hereinabove. The focus of this statement is not so directed.

The analysis and discussion of the impact of the pre­ferred Alternative C on the wildlife and vegetation is cursory and shallow. It contains many statements and conclusions that are not documented and some that are even contradicted by the information contained in the statement. For example, from page 57 of the statement:

"Designation would enhance the habitat value•of the river for the bald eagle and other threatened and endangered wildlife species by precluding further developments on private lands adjacent to the river. 11

There is no documentation in the statement to support this conclusion that precluding development of the private land adjacent to the river will "enhance the habitat value of the river" for the bald eagle. Further, there is no evidence pre-

- 2 -

©

@

sented in the statement that would indicate that the privately owned lands in the designated section of the Verde River present any inunediate danger to the riparian habitat. The only potential danger alleged is "future development", which is never defined or fully discussed anywhere in the statement.

It is clearly a requirement under the Act that specific discussion and analysis of the potential uses of the land, the effect that use will likely have, and how the inclusion of the river will enhance, foreclose, or curtail such uses and the benefits derived therefrom be included. The statement does not adequately meet this requirement.

The parayraph cited above from page 57 of the statement continues as follows:

"Increased recreation use resulting from de­signation and recognition of boating opportunities of the river could reach a point where it ad­versely affects the nesting bald eage and other wildlife species. 11

Throughout the statement, there are numerous allusions to the increased recreational use of the Verde River that will result from classification of the river, particularly under Alternative C. {See pages 30, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67.) Particularly, from page 59 of the state­ment: "The designation of any part of the Verde River in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System should increase recre­ational use".

Increased recreational use is not justif icaticn nor ne­cessarily compatible and in furtherance of the purposes set forth under the Act which can compel inclusion of a proposed river or river section into the Nationd.l Wild and Scenic Rivers system. In fact, as presented in the statement, increased recreational use of the designated area may adversely affect the preservation and conservation of a proposed area.

that: For example, in Appendix A of the statement it states

11 Bald eagles require isolation from man 1 s jisturbing activities as well as riv~rine habitat for feeding and rearing young." Page A-1.

Even the drafters of the statement acknowledge that an increase in recreational activity will be damaging to the bald eagles and the riverine habitat as cited above. However, the only alternative proposed in the slatement which would not increase recreational activity, Alternative A, was not selected as the preferred alternative.

- 3 -

... c c

©

®

TIIREA'l'ENED AND ENDANCEl~r:o SPECIES AND PLANTS

Anuther :>evere .inudequa.cy of Lhis statement is the lack of adequctte resedrch and investigation of the impact of the proposal on endangered dnd threatened species and plants in the dc~signatcd section of the Verde River. Appendix A STATE Atrn l·'EDeRALLY LISTED 'fHREA'l'LNLD l\ND l::NDANGLRED SPECIES a.-n~ Appendix B THREATENED A~D ENDJ\NcEHED-l)LANTSVERoE--~-y~~-~ (sic) cite endangered and threatened species untl plants that have lJL~cn c:lo.ss:ified, but contain only cursory und in some cases no Jiscussion of the in1pact on tl1ese cite<l ~pecies and plants t.hi :> proposal may have. lt is cle..::tr from the information lJLe;;;cnte<l in /\µpentlix A and Appendix u Uwl adcqualL' information was not gathered and thdt therefore, u proper analysis of the imrMct on these enU."rnqereU ,_.111d thredtened species ilnd plants could not be Jone. The nc:.tturdl conclusion from this defect is that the impact on other species a11d plants not endangered or threatened were ulsu not ct<lequdtely researched u.nd analyzed.

\'JA'l'ER RESOUl{CES PLl\NNI~§~_1:-c;'I'.

Another inportant considcratiun that must be discusoed in tl1e sLalement is the necessity of flood control on the Verde River. The National Wild and Scenic River~ Act clearly states thdt:

''Every such study and plan shall be coo~­d1nnt~d with any water re~ources 1~l~nninc1 involving th(~ SLJ.tnc: river which is bein-J conducted pursuant to the Viatcr Resource:> Planning Act. 11 (cite omitteU:)

There is no discussion of this important issue in the Ura ft SLdtement ilnd ils omission is a s .. .:rious Uefecl in the tlrafl. Further, a discussion and andlybiS of Lhe impact of flooding on the Verde River on the riparictn habitat and other wilrllife and vegetation in the <lesignaled section of the river is also omitted.

Sl!:C'l'ION IV EVALUA1'ION OF ALTERNN!'l VES

Section IV Evaluation of Alternatives of the statement is another important area in the propOsal that does not receive adequate information and analysis- For example, under Criteria 4._, page 64:

- 4 -

®

''In gcncri1l, Ll1ere seems to b0 support tor desi1111cttion of the Verde River into ll1e N<ltlonctl Wild and Scenic Rivers System ... "

ln fact, the only suµpoLt appc~rs to come from Lhe Forest Service, which i~ the ag~n<.:y responsible tor the preµaration nnll p11blicatio11 c1f tl1is statement, th~ Arizona Recredtion Coonlin,1tinq Co1iuni~;siun and tLc; Prescott_ Cily Council. Gila c:ounly, loc<ll ranching intc1-esls and at least 55~ of local residents of SeJor1<l, ,Jcrom0, and Lhc Verde Valley drc cited in lh0 stdtement as indicating a preference for no designation (Allernalive A). There arc many oll1er ir1terested groups,

A11doboll ~~oc.iety who tht~ statc··r,1C'nt i nrlicates u11 1\ 'l:u11Lci.ctl!J th.._~ Forc:-~t ServicL·· Llnd ex-p1 their c:oiH~~-·n1 \.J.ith ll1rcd.t oi L1w~;uit_, that the eagle hab.itdt was not be: inc; ,Hlequ<.tlc'ly [Jrotectcd and mDnaged", whose preference for dc~-;iynu.tion or- ollit>r cunuHents were not included in lhe sL1ternc11t.

Tht: me.thud USlcd by the' dr:-aflers o[ the statement to de­trrmine suµport or non-support is nol ir1dicated. /\ctual comments sub1aittc~c1 to the drailers should be included in the statement to ir1dicatc what public SUJ)µort exists for the de­s iqnd ti on. FurthC'r, acl u<ll nlui1l.J~.r s of res id en ts ond olher interested people sho\lld be includeU r.-:.1thcr than total pcrcc~ntagcs. Tile .i11clu.sion of this inlormalion anU :>ta­tistics are necess~ry to support ~ conclusionary statemer1t such as Lhe one cited ubove that Dp11r~rs in the statement.

CONCLUS fQ!J ---·---·---

This Position Statt~r:1c~nt conlain:::: ·::::pecific challcngc:s to the Ll.ccuracy and adequacy of the information ·Dnd unulysis cuntaincx1 in the Draft Environr,1ent I1ruact Stutcment on the Verde Rjver. IL cont<lins specific r~fcrcnces to detects in the focus and scope of the stutcment which are not com-patible and in furtherance of the purposes and procedures set forth in the National Wild anU Scenic Rivers Act. Based on the infor­mation and chdllenqes presented in this Posit ion St ,1 !_ cment, i L is our rec.:u1mnendation thctt a more dcta i led and thorough in­vestigation of the impact of the proposal on the ripctrian hu.bitat and other wildlif0. and vegL•la.lion in the Uesiqnated area be conducted; that a more dC'tailed and thorouqh study be conducted of the reusonLlbly f oreseeaDle potential uses of the land and water which would be enhanceU, foreclosed, or curtailed if the ured is irn.:luUed in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Sy~tcm; thw.t thj[; stucly bl~ conJuctcd <.:is prescribed in the Act in coorllination will1 any water resources planning being conducted pursuant to lhe WaLer Resources Plannlnq Act. It is our µosition thcil .such d Uetailed and

- 5 -

.... Cl ....

thorough investigation and analysis of these relevant issues will reveal that the most desireable alternative with be not to include the proposed section of the Verde River into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, but to let it remain under the control of the Prescott NationalForest and the limited number of private landowners.

Forest Service Response _to Dr. & Mrs. Joh11 w. Moon's Position Statement:

1. We agree that precluding development on private lands would not enhance the habitat value for the bald eagle and other threatened and endangered species. However, the control of developments through zoning or scenic easements would provide the oµportunity to add con­straints that would prevent adverse impacts on the existing habitat. The statement on page 5/ of the document has been re vi sect to reflect your concern.

L. Throughout the document, especially in Section IV, Effects of Implementation, an attempt was made to analyze and dlscuss the reason­ably foreseeable potential uses of lhe land and water which would be enhanced, fore l osed or curtailed if the area were included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Please note the United States lnvi ronmenta 1 Protection Agency (lPA) has rated the Ura fl Environmental Impact Statement as adequate.

3. It has been acknowledged throughout the document that recreation use of the river would increase in the future. This ~vould happen whether or not the river is designated into the Nati ona 1 Wild and Seen i c Rivers System. The driving force behind the iricrease is the currl.!nt population trend and the need for water-based recreation. We also stated that an additional increase can be expected as the result of designation. It is obvious that at some point in time, if recreation use is not controlled, the riverine environment would start to deter­iorate. The necessary controls would be prescribed in the management plan discussed on pages 69 and 70 of this document.

4. We agree that an i ndepth study of both threatened and endangered wi 1 d-1 i fe and plant species along the Verde River would be desirable. How­ever, in eva 1 uat i ng the proposa 1 it was found that the only factor that could adversely effect either plants or wildlife was the slight increase in recreation use. The interdisciplinary team in consulta­tion with wildlife biologists from the three National Forests involved decided that people pressure could be controlled through existing authority. Therefore, the discussions in this report were focused on the bald eagle, which is currently receiving management emphasis. Both Appendices A and B were revised as the r~sults ot public and agency comments.

5. We agree that flood control on the Verde R1 ver is of prime concern. See added flood Control section in Appendix c.

6. Criterion _'I: on page 64 has been revised to reflect your concern regard­ing designation support. Actual numbers of residents and other inter­ested people, by preference, have been displayed in TABLES 10 and 11 on pages 73 and 74.

',

Forest Service Responst::._ 12_ Steve Murdock~ comment~:

Steve:

The int~nl of including the river into tfle Wild and Scenic Rivers System is to keep it free-flowing and prevent darns and other struc­tures that woulJ r~move w~ter from the river. /\s you can see, without water there would be no fish and very few species of wildlife to hunt. lJes l gnat ion does not prevent hunting or fishing nor does ; t tell you where you can or cannot hunt or fish.

Should the river be designated as a Wild and Scenic River, the Forest Service will try to keep the stream and surrounding area like it is today: Young people like yourself will be able to continue enjoying the river values.

... 0 N

©

To: II. lh!wc1y11c Mur~:in, ForPst Pl:1nnl'r Prescott National For<•st P.O. BoK 2'.)49, Prescott, /\z, 86302

Comments an1l 01scu~sion: Ver,/c River (Jraft EnvironmPtal Study and Wild a11d Scenic River Study

By: Dr. and Mrs. John W. Moon 13215 PomPgranate Drive Su11 City West, Az. 85375

Owners: Brown Springs Roncl1 Yavapai County, Az.

Jill' Dro(t E11vlr111lin<'ntal [111p.1("t St.1t1·ml'nt un thv Verde River (to be referred to as tl1t' Blue Book) was first brought to our attention in mid October, 1980. Altl1011gli we arc the only private property owners 011 SPgment I3 of the Blue Book proposal, the Forest Service failed to notify us. ThereforP, tliis is our first opportunJty to comment. Our time for prepar­ation of these comments has been fihort - too short to cover many of the topics before tl1e November 24, 1980 cut-off date set by the Prescott National Forest. llowever, we l1avc solic­ited information from (1) National Forest 11ersonncl; (Z) the Salt River Project~ (3) the Arizona Cattle Growc·r's Aeeociation; (4) the Audubon Society attornPy, Ricl1ard Katz; (5) various individual9 from Camp V~rde and private landowners from Segment A, and (6) tt1e Water and Power Res<1urces Service. Because we have hiked, back-p~cked, camped n11d fished the Verde River from Beasley Flats' to the East VPnlt:>' s beginning and down to Horseshoe Dam, during all seaeons of the year, we believe we are acquainted with the Verde Rlv~r below Camp VerJe. We have combined what we have learned from tl1e above so11rc~s

with our practical knowledge gained from livtn~ on tl1c Verde River for over 20 years in preparing this state1ncnt.

We recommend that Alternative/\. be sell•ctell for the final draft to be prepared for su\,ml~sion to CongrPqs in April of 1981.

Recommend: A more rlet~ilr<l r0mment on the imp;irt of an Increase in disper~ed rccrealil111al activity 011 wl!Jlife:

Discussion: Tl1~ Blue Book indicnte8 tlic Fl1test Service plan~ to ''Increase the supply of otJtdoor rccreatfo11 opportunities and services through Forest Service programs that cmphasi~e dis­persed recreation'' (page 38). Tl1is is sup11orted by tt1c 11ro­posed budget figures allocating$ 225,000 for development costs of recreation facillties and $170,000 for costs of rn<"l<l develop­ment (page 51) Also durinR an i11tervicw Hr. tlori~an, Plnn11cr .':llotcd that there would be a "large 1

' incrcasl' !11 r<•crt·.1t lnn.1I use during the first few years, Mr. HhL'<J, Forl·~;t R<"l11p,t•r 1 esti­mated there would be a 11 300%'' incrPas~ in lJSe <l11rlng t11e first few years. Use Js tl1c1\ expected to graJ11al\y Jiminlsl1. 'J'his increase in use wlll he produced by tlie advertfsing effect of including the Verde River into tl1e System which will attract national attention.

The impact of increased recreation, motorized e~pecially, but also dispersed, will be adverse upon the wildlife an<l especially the bald eagle. This i~ recof~nizt.'d hy y011r statl•­ment on page 66. "RI ver des i~n;i t Jon with t h1· 1 mprClVC'd ,, ("('"p.s.s

would increaRe the> numhl'r of rl'cr••:it ion vlsllors. Tht.s ln­crensC' could l1av~ ~11 a,!vcr.se ln111acl on wildlike, specificaliy the nesting bald eagle .... 1'

®

©

The efforts thus f .'.lr have been to hide the eagles and down-play public attention to their lncatlo11. Tlie selection of Alternative C will reverse that effort. Brown S11rings Road (FS0574) passes tl1rot1Rl1 an area of maximu1n interest to tl1osc people intent on prest.•rving and improving tht>ir habit.it. From personal observation we can state tl1ere has bv~n a stca(Jy dv­crease in motor traffic on fS #574 over the past 20 y~ars. It ie surprising to us tl1at an accurate count on mot<lr, foot, l1orseback and boat traffic l1as nol been don~ on tl1is vital arPa. There never has ht'f'n heavy tr.:iffic In tin· river corridor by foot, horseback or b11nt as the V~r<I'• ltivPr Is not n g'!t1tl rt•cf('-ational river. Uu<lt>r prcsf'nt innnagL'nwnr .ii l f11r111s or t ra! f ic in the 1 iver corridor and on tile road nTt' mlnit11,I}.

Tl1e Blue Book placee a definite ~mpl1osis 011 i11crcn~t11g recreational use of tl1c Verde River l1ndcr Alternative C (pages 38, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59', 60, 61, 63, 64. 65 66, 67). Also tl1e advantage of Alternativ~ A is clearly stated on page 72 in this regard. '1 Alternative A .'lvoid8 recreation use stimulus due to classi(icatlon."

Therefore, we bel icve one of tl1e most s1.~rtous errors of the Blue Book 18 that Alternative C is tl1e l1cst way to protect the wildlife ;i:nd their habitat. ThPrf> i.'i no qut•stion that 11ndC'r present management impact on wildlife is ml11imnl and we lie~ lieve Alternative /\ is prnf~rable unll•ss furth0r cl art ftc:1t 1on to support the sl'levtion of AllPrnntlv1.' C is ]llrthc11111ing ln till' final statem~nt.

Recommend: Cor~Pctlo11 or <lPlction of statements:

"During the study proces.'l, the prlm:iry isSH<' rmPrglng from the public 1nvolvemL•nt wa~ '.~hnuld thP •;tudy ·oi')'HH'lll nf the

Vcrc\L• River . , •. IH' designated ns ,1 componvnt of tlH' National Wild and Scenic Rivers Sy:::>tcm "!' "Jllis "i:;sut.· w11s

raised by local governments, Salt River Proj~rt, Locnl Cattlemen, mining interests, 11r1vate landow11ers, and individual citizens as well as by tl1c Wild a11d Scenlr Rivers Act itself. lt is tl1e primary issue addressed in this study''. (page 11)

Discussion: The Verd~ River is being cnnsidPr1•d for l11clu-8lo_n ___ f-;;~e system at the rf'quest of Conp,rl's::>man Mlir-1-is llJall. That is common knowledge. WP object to the attempt of the Blue Book to justify this st11<ly by implyi11g tt ts at tl1e pub­lic's request. We believe it wouJd be dlffic11lt for you to document significant statewide interest in this proposal bet11g brought u11 for stt1dy by those you list above, An exception would be the Audubon Society whic\1 you l1avc not incll1JPJ ln your above list. The Salt River Project refuses to make a state­ment but from a tel~rt1one conversion with a high-ranking offi­ciAl we were informed thAt they are not in favor of this pro­pos31. Therefore, we feel your above stateme11t ts 111arc11rate and misleading. It should be corrected.

Recommend: (1) A changt· manner of reporting under "Summary of Comments Reccived 1

'. (page 71)

(2) A corr0ction in t11e stateme11t that all pri­vate landowners were contart~d in perso11 or liy letter. We were not contacted ~s l1as bce11 pointed out.

-c w

©

©

Discussion: In studying tl1e Blue Book we have found lt to con­tain many gross exaggerations, half truths~ and poorly substan­tiated guesses. All of which tend to support the bia~ of the Forest Service that adoption of tlte Verd~ into the system is desirable. It is now apparent to us tl1at tl1e implementation technique of the Forest Service is to take their predetermined goals; hold public meetings to ohtnin proof they solicited pop· ular opinion on the project (t11ere will always be a Sierra Club member in attendance to support the Forest Service' position); and, thus justified by such public ''input'', they can proceed towards their goal protected by thi~ facade of democratic process demanded by the law.

To support Oltr contention we revlewPd tl1c rost~r c1f tl1ose in attendance at tl1~ 1111hlic me~ti11gR 111\ tl1r Rlue R~ok. 'rl1P

number in attenda1\ce was small anti ma11y of tl1ose wert• rvprv­sentatives of other state and fl•dcral a~encies. Also during our interview with Mr. Morgan, Planner, he st;lted tl1at the Forest Service te11ds to disre~arcl wrltt011 lnp11t. i.r. letters. regarding tlie Ulue Book if tl1cy sintply state pref,·rt•11~c for Alternative A, or ''no actlo11''. Sucl1 rxpr0ssions nr0 conHJd~T0tl nonconstructive. It a1>pcarG tl1at no m~tter l1ow m~ny l~ttcrs you receive expressing a preference for Alternative A, tl1c Forest Service !}as alre~dy predetermined that Alternative c is Whilt wi!l be submitted to Congress. to mock the democratic procesR thnt the diligently appears to encourage. It is Planners to know what i8 best for us.

1'h~ proced11rP appear·. Forest Service so a matter of the

Therefore, we request that a me~11ingful tabulntlon of all written comments be included in the final stntemcnt. Ex­press the tallies, not in percentages, but in act11al numbers in favor of eacli of the Alternatives. The responses should be further tabulated as (1) local - or Verde Valley (2) from within Arizona (3) from without Arizona (4) member of Audubon Society (5) member of Sierra Club or (6) state or federal government em~loyee.

Recommend: A more detailed report on the impart of the pro­posal on flood control in the Salt River Valley nnd on t11e riparian habitat of the Verde River.

Discussing Flooding: The Blue Book Planners Rtatc there ine certain environmental advantages to the pa8sage of the Proposal. In response to direct question aR to wl1y is the Forest Service convinced that Alternative c: is preferable over A - Dewayne Morgan. Planner, replied that it would elim­inate any future <lams on tlle Verde River. However, as the ~B points out ''Flooding in the Salt River Vitllcy below the confluence of the Salt and Verde Rivers ls a scrio11H problem -a problem highligl1ted by the floods of tl1e past tl1ree ye~rR .•• page 44 •. T11e Verde River is a major contributor to tl1e flooding problem and it is likely thAt additionn1 flood control facilities on the river will be recommended in the CAWCS Rtudy''. Thie draft does not include any input from the Kovernments of the cities so drastically affeC"ted by thos~ r·1onds. There is no statement from the CAWCS since Deccmb~r, 1979, and there has been much in the local news to indicate tl1ere is considerable interest in flood control on t11e Verde. For example: The Cliff Dam site hes been mentioned as a viable alternative to the Orme Dam, etc. The question of wllethcr or not this prnpoRal if adopted will hamper necessary flood control for the Salt River Valley should have greater discussion and clarlfication.

©

®

®

The recent floods have not only caused problem~ £or po~tJlatPd communities, they have devastated much of tl1e riparian li:ihitat on the Verde River. The destructlo11 of old an<l yo11ng trrcs. the scouring away of alluvial slH'lvcs an<l all v(·~etation. the total altering of the river bottom from a green belt to a boulder-strewn wasteland has to he seen to he believed. Tlits topic is not discussed in the Blue Book. The impact of the floods, past and future, on the riparian habitat is of im­portance in planning.

Request: More arcurate <lata hl' fnc1oJ1.!d in tiH' final St.:llt'­:~~!r!~t~~~p~~t the estimated co':>t of $1,693, 700 to ltnp]cmC'nt

Discussion: 11 Tl1e estimated cost of implementing the pre-ferred Alternative. excluding annual maintenance is $1,693.700.'' (page 67) This fig11re is misleading. Of that total, over $1 million is allocated for scenic easement acquisition. Howev~r, no appraisal data ts included and evidently llaS not bee11 done. Wl1en we inciuircd of one of the top planners as to how tile allocation wns made for scenic easements, he admitted it was a gt1ess and stnted that ''it's unrealistic but we had to put sometliing down' 1 •

Therefore, we recommend that more acc 11rate cost data be included in tl1e final statement on the cost of Alternative c. Le us suggest that~ since the maximum cost for scenic ease­ments will be in Segment A, we recommend an MAI appraisai of representative river frontage private land which would be in­cluded in scenic easement negotiations. A spot check type of approach could be extrapolated to a meaningft1l cost estimate of this major expense item. It will give credibility to the report which is now lacking. Tl1e political reality of today emphasizes the need for accuracy in cost rstinintes as well as frugality.

Request: Correction of reference to Urown Springs as a ranch headquarters. Also a correcti0n of the statement regards the improvements. (Page 36)

Discussion: Brown Springs Ranrh is a 50-acre parcel of deeded property wl1ich lies on the west side of and adjacent to the Verde River about 17 miles downstream from' Camp Verde. We have improved this property for over 20 years. We have built a modern home and guest quarters, a large steel barn, a work and storage shed, a hydroelectric system, and have instaJled an extensive underground dome~tic and irrigation water svstem. A few head of stock are raised on tlie property. We hav~ 110

grazing permit on the National Forest althour;h tht~ surrounding area is known as tl1e Brown Springs Allotment. Small grain crops, pest11re, wood lot, <1rcl1ard. and truck ~~rdPn cr11ps arc rHlscd, mainly for home use. Another family }ivc-s in their own qu~rters on the place and work with us. 'file property docs not ~xtcnd to the river's edge as notC'd on pagl' 56. Our only <H'Cf'ss is a graded FS Road #574 also known as Brt1w11 s 11rfi1i~~; H11ad.

Recommend: That the final rl'f>ort lncludc> a statement speciric­ally assurin~ us of unrPstricted access to Ar(iw11 S11rJngs Rnnch via FS #574 or Brown S11rings ll11ail.

... 0 .,..

Discussion: Un<lPr Pach alternatlve H. C a1ld D (pages 41• 42. 4J) the Blue Book etetee ''Roads and trA11s will h~ impounded or closed as ncc1•ssary''. And. page 48. 11 For example. it mAy be ncceSAAry to imJJOSC a closure or<l~r tP­stricting pt1blJc use 011 segments of tl10 rJvrr, durin~ the nesting period of the bald eagle .. , .• 11 • Again on page Sb, ''Existing roads and trails will be evalt1atcd ancl upgraded or closed as needed to provide reasonable publJc access or protect the values wliich cause t11e river t11 hP added to the National Wild .1nd Scenic Rivers System''.

On page 4 under question 4 ' 1 If pri1•,1te 1andownC>rship is retained~ will roa<l Access tl1rol1gh the clasHif ied areR be allowed"?

The answ@r: ''Rigl1ts of reasonable access will not be denied, Road aCcese through a designated area to private lRn<l would be allo~~d to the extent it does not significantly impair the natural character of the area.''

Since FS 0574. Brown Springs Road is the only road to Brown Springs Ranch, and since Brown Springs Ranch is the only private property affected in Segmcnt B by the propoRHl, a direct statement assuring tl1e owners 0f the property of unrestricted access shoL1ld be Jncluded in the final statement.

1. See Forest Service Jekel 1~ Howard on

to the positiur: \l.,1t'-'me:it submitted by Ur. and Mr::.. ,John \~. 1•1oon.

~. The µrimary issue stat~ment in Subsection D, Issues and Co_ncerns on pag~ 3 has been revised to reflect your concern. The intent of the statement was not to imply that the study was bei ny done based on public demand. Se1;. page 1 for explanation as Lo why the study 1 s being conducted.

3. As reco1m11ended, a tabulation of respondents by residence 1·;, ln-

cludeu in Section VIII of this report. Vie did not to tab-ulate State and Federal yovernment employet~s or Sierra ctnd Audubon Society members because most of the respondents did not provide U1is information. See Surrnnary of Puhlic Corn111ents, AµpendlX r.

4. fhe ':>ttJt~.i1er1L or1 71 that "/\ll µrivate landowners were cont~11~d:d" was revised to that a reasonable a~tempt was 111ade to conl,11_t all private landowners. It waSlJ·n-fortUflate t,hat we sent prel11111 inforn1aLion concerning the study to the wrong Dr. Moon (your and Lhat you d1d not receive the message we left with your priva~e land caretaker in Ca111µ Verde.

~. Your statement concerning a discussion wiLh Mr. Morgun is su111ev1hdt inisleadiny. Mr. Morgan is a 111ember of the interdisciplinary t~u111 preparing lhis report, and Ile indicated that his resµonse to you r'l:­garding how public comments were Lo be us~d was 11 written input li1al states v1hy a specific alten1alivc was preterred ,over another altenid­tive would be more helpful in rnaking the final decision than a s1111~1~. I prefer alternative •.. " All written co1nrnl!nts received on the Urall Environmental Statement were considered in µrcparing the Final Cn­vironrnental lmµact Statement.

6. Sec summary reµort of Flood Control dcLivities alon~J the Verde f<iver in Append1 x c.

7. We admit thdt the costs included in the report are our best estimates based on current land values and a cursory review of scenic easement i111µacts on private lands. llowcver, the study Leam decided that an indeµLh MIA appraisal would add litt~e to the report con~ideriny the actual impacts of scenic easements w111 noL be known unt1 ! the manage­menl plan for the river has been cornµleted. The management µldn will not be done unless the river is designated. Also, the exact cost ot scenic eas~ments will not be known until each proposal has been nugo­tiated 1-1ith individual landowners.

e. The reference on page 36 to Brovm ~pr111~1s dS J rdr1ch headquarters h.i~, been corrected. Also, the listin·~ i)I 1111µrvv.:,1a:nts !las been uµdoL,~d.

9. To assure you ot UIH't.:~tr·icLt~d access tu ;Jro1rm Sprinys private property via ~'.:i ;/':J/'-1 WOlJld [,, (':JLSHJe Ui-.: scope of this study. Therefore, we hav'l! cl(~ctp,i t; 1iro11d.~ you an ctr1s11,~r to thiS q~ws-tion throuyh nlm11d1 ;-ores;_ le. 1wuc,~d:1n·s: I tr·us, tl1e 1·~~-sµonse you have rccei verJ tu rj-J·,;1 :1,;s bt:(:~1 sat i sft:ictory.

..... Cl U'I

ATTENTION! FROM THE SILENT MAJORITY

OF THE VERDE VALLEY With regards to the Wild. and Scenic River Study for the Verde

River, November 24, 1980 is the deadline to inform the Prescott Na­tional Forest Supervisor of our choice of either Alternative A *B *C* D.

We of the Silent Majority have reviewed the Wild and Scenic River Study and recommend that out of the four alternatives given, Alter­native A is our recommendation. Alternative A states that we do not want to change the status of the Verde River.

By remaining silent you're voting for Alternative C which the government favors and it will mean:

l. More government control over private lands . 2. Increase of people along the river. 3. No new or reconstruction of fences, buildings, or irrigation

dit.ches. 4. Livestock grazing will be limited. 5. No flood control dams could be built on the Verde River. 6. No hunting would be permitted.

-STOP THIS ACT BEFORE CONGRESS VOTES IT INTO LAW-

Write to the Forest Supervisor today. stating that you ore in favor of Alternative A

Please write:

DO NOT WAIT-WRITE NOW Prescott Notional Forest, P.O. Box 2549, Prescott, Arizona 86302 Attention: Mr. Bolander

*Also send a copy to your Congressman.

Forest Service Response to_Silent Majority's newspaper article:

This news article was published on November 20, 1980 in the Verde View, a weekly newspaper which is circulated throughout the Verde Valley. We are not sure what influence it had on writ ten comments received fo 11 ow­ing publication, but statements 3, 4, and 6 were in error or misleading.

3. The statement "no new or reconstruction of fences, buildings or i rri gat ion ditches" is mis 1 eadi ng. The third paragraph on page 57 of the document states that "unobtrusive fences and other range improvements wi 11 be penni tted if they do not produce a si gni fi cant adverse impact on the natural character of the river." The report further states on page 56 that "present uses would not be affected" by designation "without the consent of the landowner." The Scenic Easement which wi 11 be negotiated with each private landowner wi 11 be the document that places restrictions on private lands. Note that affected landowners will be fully compensated for any loss of deve 1 opment rights.

!.I. The statement 11 livestock grazing will be limited" is also misleading. The third paragraph on page 57 states that "livestock grazing will continue to the extent it does not detract from the va 1 ues for which the river was selected and designated under the provisions of the National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act." It is expected that livestock yrazing would continue within a balance of range capacity as defined and direct~d by the current management trend. This includes consid­eration for the bald eagle, watershed, vegetation, water quality and other 1 and management e 1 ements.

6. The statement that "no hunting would be permitted" is completely in error. The Arizona Game and Fish Uepartment manages wildlife popula­tions and controls hunting of individual species. Designation does not relieve the State of this responsibility. To our knowledge, there are no plans to close the river to hunting. Perhaps the 11 area closure 11 actions recently employed by the Forest Service and agreed to by the Arizona Game and Fi sh Oepa rtment were interpreted as a trend toward a no-hunting policy. This is not true. The c 1 osures are necessary to protect the active nesting sites of the bald eagle and will probably continue with or without designation.

.... 0 CTI

F_C2_~est .Serv -- -~-~~!i_esponse to · 'I - --- t_l 1 zabeth A r d ie. cos L of imp l ernent. - -- _._ - _o_.r:.ce 's cu1111nents.

eriv~d from Table 5 ing Alternative C ref on µage S! n erred lo on Transportatio . . ie followiny costs~~~~ 67 wos ~ecreation Fan~yste111 Oevelop111ent c included: ~cenic laseine~~ ~~ies"Uevelopment:·.:::: .......... > 370,000 ,1anaye111ent Pl p qu101l1on...... .......... U' an rescription ..... :::::··· ........ 1,01~'.~~~

Considerin t . "ioi-AL. $I n,ooo fonnatio g he t1111e availabl f ,093,700

, n was used t e or the sLud o make the cost eslirnaL~~.thc hcst ava1lable in-

... Q .....

-1 /

( ;. (•"'-"'

d .:-...... , . .:.,'.._ /..< ~ ..... -~.·--J._

C"'"/,:,,,_ /

(-,,.,,~~~ -e,./ u~}:_~. -.._(_· / \.7

l J. ll' "'~ . l'7 f),:

•c ~,·v:-,-·:~~:~.:~ ~~-·;_/2 £~:.? ~"i~~(•,;:~rv~~:_ - ;.·..___., _,c.___~---~ /d"~--17-- A':z~~

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not yive the Forest Service the right to buy µrivate property at the "lowest minimum price" or to "condemn and leave the land owner with nothing".

If the river is designated, tth:- Forest Service will not have the authority to condc1nn tor fee title. It can condemn for scenic eas'2111ents. Thi.? sco..;11ic easement cannot prohibit, without the land­owner1s perinission, any current regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of tt1e easement. Scenic easements are purchased at the fair 1narket value.

.... 0 00

David R. Gipe 1150 Avenue C

Yuma, Arizona 85364

(602) 783.S638

~orest Supervisor Pre~cutt National Forest P. 0. !Jox 2519 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Dear Sir:

November 19, 1980

The following a.re my official corrunents in regaru to the ''Verde Rivnr Draft Environmental Statement and ~Jild And Scenic River Study.''

In general, T hGve a number of questions as to the accuracy dnJ credibility of the entire report. In Table 4 the report sctys tho.t in 1978 the Verde had 28,800 recrea- . tional visitor days. Ilavinl_J property on the Verde and hi1ving spent a lot of time on the river over the past 8 years, I believe this figure to be grossly exaggerated. The same table jndicoLes thnt Alternative C (the report's preferred alterna­tive} will increase the use of river by 17,923 recreationctl vi~itor days by 1990. Of this increase, 4,716 recreational visitor days (ur 26% of the total) are projected to be in the area of water-based recreation. This seems highly improbablG when the report itself states that the river does not meet the criteria for ''outstandingly remarkable'1 recreational value. The only recrcati0nal value that the river has in Segmen~ A js swimming. The river is too shallow for tubing, canoe1ng, or boating. I make this statement without fear of contradic­t-ion hPcausC:? I have raised four child:ren who hnve on nurr1erous occasions tried the above without success.

Looking further at Table 4, the increase in recreational visitor days from 1978 to 1990 (tinder Alternative C for picnic­ing, camping, and water-based recreatjon) amounts to 11,559 recreation visitor days ... an increase of 64% of the total pro­jected increase. For a river that does not huve "ou~standi1:1gly remarkable recreational V<llue," this increase (even if the in­going base for 1978 was absolutely correct) will not hcJ.ppen.

The report projects a cost for Alternative C tC: bA $1,693,000. If the report is accurate as to construction costs and also in projecting 17,923 increased recreational visitor days, then this amounts to a. cost of $94.46 per recreF1tionv.l

Forest Suµervisor Prescott National Forest November lg, 1980

-2-

visitor clay for i11it.i.al t.:un!3truction in the implementation of Alterndtive C. Usin9 the same scenario, Alternative B would cost $233,~00 ~nd wuul<l res~lt in an 1ncrense at 17,198 recrect­tiondl vioitor days, for a 11 per RVD" implementation cost of $13.58. I doubt that. Alternative C meet'.:> any reasonable bcncfit­cost Lest. lf any designnt1on 011 the river has to be, then Alternative B certainly comes much closer to a favorable benefit­cust rclntionship. This is particularly important to consider ln light uf the fncL thnl lhc river does not eossess ''outstand­inq rc~mi1rku.ble" recreational value. -,fhC VCrae should theretOYe nOE bCdeST..jrW.led for recn.~,1tion as is defined under the Act.

In this period of high inflation the voicc1 of the American people sc·ems to be saying to the govcrn;nl:nt that it should cut out cost­ly ineffective programs. I cannnt believe that any individual usir1lJ the river for rccroationnJ purposes between now and 1990 would be willing to pay $94.46 per day of use. lf the people ·vould recognize that this is not a qood dedl and is not worth what it costs, why should lhe yovcrnment even consider going forwi1rd?

The· above costs are based upon thu report 1 s own figures as to use and construction cost. If both arc exaggerated favorably by SO%, then the cost per day of use would increase fourfold tu dround $400 per day of use.

l believe it goes without saying that ir1 all probability the use of the river will incrc~se over the next ten years without the government spending uny money.

Alternative C adversely impacts 737 acres of private land. Alternative D adversely impacts 1500 acres of private land. Both are totally unacceptal.ile when weighed against the benefjt­cost relutionship for the entire project.

On ,July 7, 1979 I addressed a letter to the Forest Supervisor on this same subject, but more from the vantage point of a permittee operating a cattle business on the forest. These corrunents are still appropriate cJ.nd are aLto.ched hereto as a part of my official response.

att.

~r~ 1150 AvAnue C Yum;;., AZ 85364

.... Cl co

Dauid R. Gipe J 150 Auenue C

Yuma, Arizona 85364

(602) 783-8638

July 7, 1979

Mr. Donald H. Bolander Forest Supervisor Prescott National Forest P.O. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Dear Mr. Bolander:

Thanks for your letter of J.iay 24 in reg<J.rd to the Wild and Scenic River Study involving the Verde River. In k"2ep­ing \·:it1l your su9gcst:i~n I have visited "~ith Dewayne ,"~cr~an.

rlfter qivinq t.he matter consldPrable tl;~.:iu~r-it I ha.v'2 ser­ious r0:-.crvatior.s aOOut any of the designations. I tlilnJ.: that anv official desi~nation vould have ~n 2dverse effect on oune~S:"!io of dEwded.-l~nd on the .::-iver. Tl-·ere \.'OUld :ie incrca~ed t~~ffic flo~, inc~cns2d pressure to grdnt riohts of inc::rc<ss _•r:d e~:re>ss, and inipairr-:cnt of o•,,·nr:rsi1ip by lLnit­in~ rlq~t to develop - a right that is ?QraiDunt.

As a Permittee usin;r the Forest Service l.::mds I think that any dcsi0nat-ion \:ouid cause qr2ater difi'iculty in t~2 rrinc!iinq O';)cration unci in the pr.or;.er 1--:anC'.oement of the re­s?urce. ~<y ?~i;:i(~r iPnce is th;;it ~.ncrcas;d use .c bri:1~1~ ~no:;~ i-.

arPater [.XJl lut1on - r.iuch cf lt :tn thr? ,_arm o-'- out.-1911t ~ llt, .• }~Gny of the people that use the river tlrC totally, ir-r0s~:>cn­sihlc ,_.;~en it co!:-.cs to tt:e basic rules o~ r,ec.lth. end 11y'Jicn~. rrntil I \>)'!-.n0:->::;0d it I ,.,.ould not have bolievcd what I hc-.ve --:;ct.:>n a.f tor heavy use µer~ ods on holiday -,.;c;ck12r0 d.s *

Jn addition I havf"! 9rr.at concr.rn about lo::os of ::a.t-1:.!e throl~gh th0:t. i'~any pC'Ople think tllc!t it is a.Jlri9"ht ta ki.11 a calf and 11Qlp thr:?rr>.sclv2s to l:he r.-.c>at - dS lona ,!S l11r.:-y doJ. 1 t c;r~t c;~1~'1ht. It is obvious that the ccuntry is =-~o v;:st t_i-,at prnpc·r :~ucvc l 1 i( .nee rind 1 <3.W <'!nf 01·cc-mt?nt ·>-t1llJ)r_ 1Y: .-.(fr·,1u:~ t':>:..y r1~lrtdi~cd. Th2 (j!Cater the traffic the 0rP~t0r this r1·0b­J.p;n ,.,·ill !:>C?.

-2-

When the study is completed could you please send me a resume of the findings. I would like to reserve the right to comment further after the studies are completed and I have had opportunity to review the findings.

Forest Service Response to David _B_.=._~s. _comments:

1. Based on your concern that the recreation use figures in TABLE 4 werr.: too high, we r~viewed the rnethodoloyy used to make the esti­mates. We found th~t the procedures used were adequate. However, an error \'1as found in the 1978 base data for fishing use which reduced the total estimated recreation use to 25,l'.OU RVD 1 s. The necessary corrections have been rnade in both T~LES 4 and b. We agree that recreation us~ is light in the general vicinity of the V~rde Ranch and other private lands 1 ocated at the north end of river segment A. However, the relatively high use near Clarkdale Beasley Flats and Verde Hot Springs must also be considered "hen ' computing total use of the river.

2. A.river does not have to possess "Outstanding Remarkable" recroa­~10n value~ to. ~xperience an increase in visitor use days. The lncreas~s ir_1 tn1s report ar~ based on past use records, general populat10n increases and a slight increase due to designation.

3. Your cost analysis of tt1e a!ternJtives is interestin'.J. It assumes t~1at. the deve l opmen~ ~osts wi 11 be amortized in one year and only tr.1e incn.'ased recreation visitors in 1Y80wi11 b~nefit from designa­tion. We agree that Alternative B is pi;;!rhaps more cost effective thanl\ltcrnative C. Ho,,ever, it should be noted that the cost of acqu1r1ng scenic caseme~ts on private ldnds is the major cost ele­ment. Recri.:atio11 classification is not dependent or1 the amount of recreation use being received by a river. The classification ls based_ on d~yree of development along the shoreline, access, ddms ar_1d diversions. See section B, Classification Criteria and lJeter­mrnati~r_:i. on page 3!J. ---------

... ... Q

Leonard Staff, Jr,, D.O. DSTEDP.·\THIC l'HY:3JC1A~

,::.:11' "' • -.\ "> ur,

November 22, 1980

De Wa;yne Morgan Forest Planners Prescott National Forest P.O. Box 2549 Prescott, A•. 86302

Dear Sir:

It has been brought to roy attention some of the actions pending in the

Prescott Forest area.

Therefore, please register my protest against the proposed designation

of the Verde River for one quarter mile on each side from Beasley Flats to Table

Mountain into the Wild and Scenic River status.

This would be an infrigement on people 1 s rights of reasonable access to the

area.

I would like to suggest that "Alternative A11 be strongly considered and

accepted.

si;· / ely yours J

: :u.<M..,.J !;t,//;.h··/-P Le nard Staff Jr., il'.o.

f_p_r_~s_t _~rvice Response to Leonard Staff, Jr. 's comments:

The Verde Kiver Dratt Study identified sub-stdndard roads and lack of legal access through private property as the two major problems re­stricting public access. The manayernent plan described on pages 69 and 70 would analyze the access needs and prescribe road standards. Legal access to and along the river would also be determined.

ORI/ dccess would be curtailed, t1owever 1 the study team has concluded that any access lost to ORV 1 s would be offset by i rnprovi ng the sub­standard roads and providing legal access to and along the river.

BOB STUMP

w ...... ,,.<iT<>H, 0.C. 10~1~

(202)ll!.-<15"

~00! "'"'""I. Uu1~01"'° l"..00.Ml~, AIOIU>••• l~C~

{6tl)l11-6g;w

<c:on~ress of tbe Z!lnitcb ~tates ;l!;loust of iltprtsrntatibts

Uia5!Jington, ia.C. :20515

October 20, 1980

The Honorable Bob Bergland Secretary Department of Agriculture 14th Street & Independence Avenue, SW Washington, O.C. 20250

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I arn opposed to the designation of the three river segments, comprising 109 miles of Arizona rivers, as part of the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Sys tern.

Some of the reasons for not including these segments of the Verde, Salt, and San Francisco Rivers are:

1) Current efforts toward vital flood control measures could be hindered.

2) Designation of approximately 33,210 acres of land on the river banks as "wilderness. 11

3) Lost economic value to private ownership, mining, timber and rai 1 road interests.

4) Lost development potential. 5) Historical use of rivers by residents. 6) Continued withdrawal of public lands from multiple use.

Though I would prefer to have Arizona lands removed from federa 1 control and placed.Jl.il.c;.JLi_nto local control, the only acceptable alternative proposed in the Draft Environmental Statement and Wild and Scenic River Studies is that which leaves the rivers and their immediate environs and current land uses essentially unchanged. Even this alternative allows for continued federal control of too much Arizona 1 and.

Sincerely,

BOB STUMP Member of Congress

BS: cd

.... .... ....

~ Coconino · ,~' "'•,,<?. Natural Resource Conservation District

P.O. Box 2778 Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

November 23, 1980

H. Dewayne !'>lrgan, Forest Planner

Prescott National Forest

P .0. Box 2549

Prescott, AZ 86302

Dear Mr. Morgan:

The Coconino Natural Resource Conservation District Board met on

November 16, 1980 and discussed the outcome of the Verde River Wild

and Scenic River Study. The following was agreed upon and passed by

the Board.

The existino river should be maintained in

"Multiple Use" concept. Jn future planning of

such a concept we recommend:

Sincerely;]

1. Grazing be an important factor in planning use.

2. Stream bank vegetation should be managed for nesting

and cavity dwelling species of wildlife and only

those trees removed that are absolutely necessary.

3. With the drastic increase in rafting and boating

4.

use, aquisition of scenic easements be undertaken

where long stretches of private exist and present

Forest Service managed lands be used as scenic access.

That the management concept be kept up to date and that

prime riparian veqetati on pro tee ti on be a major priority

in that management concept.

5, That an exerted effort be made to follow the

Clean Water Act and that the river remain free

flowing throj9h the designated study area.

/

l .- } ; ( '-'--'--·- (.._

James R. David

Chairman of the Board

a Verde Natural Rcsoun:.:e Conservation District 2717 North Fourth St., Suite 130

~ .................. F.1a•g•st•a•f•f1 •• A

1z ... 8

161o101 .......... lllt.

Prescott National Forest P .0. Box 2549 Prescott, Az. 86302

Dear Si rs:

November 7, 1980

We have revie>1ed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Verde River Wild and Scenic River Study Report.

We feel the only alternative that should be considered is Alternative A, (no designation - No action).

With this alternative the following can be obtained:

I. retention of multiple-use management options 2. more opportunity for maximum economic development flexibility 3. more options kept open for energy development 4. no interference with private landowner rights.

Sincerely,

';--'1•\.

John Edge

: ~ (,

/

Chairman / , . . , ,!} ,:/:i., ':5, c :.c)f"J/I C·wcJ a d:.'<f/'

Henry~J imonsgaard Secretary- Treasurer

~~ ~\.Jv\~ Werner Meyer \ \

fa 1 9 I

1 ""' 't ·' ~ ' '"".-. ~

Charles Van Gorder

Merlynn Talbot

"fc_;::z0-?~' ,:;;.,:J/;.~t ...

--N

Mr. Donald H. Bolander Forest supervisor Prescott National Forest P. 0. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Dear Mr. Bolander:

November 10, 1980

The following conuncnts on the Verde River Draft Environmental Statement and Wild und Scenic River Study are provided for your considnration. The Forest Service has prepared a detailt~d ;:md well organized report considering the time constraints i11volved.

Phelps Dodge corporation reconuuends Alternative A (Continuation of Prc:-sent Manug_e0en_t), as the preferred alterndtivc rather t"hiln AJ Le1=J1a-FlVe C 'which is preferred by the Forest Service and designates 72.5 miles for inclusion in the Na"lional Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Alternative A retains.multiple use management options, but still gencrully provides the amenities available through the other alternatives. There is no reason to conclude that pdst Forest service multiple use management has been wanting. The case for the burgeoning management requirements, that acco!L!pany Wild, Scenic or Recreation River Designation, is weak ut best.

The Forest Service report did not find outstandingly remarkable recreation opportunities on the Verde River Study Area, and yet, a Recreation Designation is preferred for the upstream 33 mile segment. Although minor recreational improvements (r~.ainly access) wOuld be planned under thi.s Designation, they would be little more than those available under present manilgem~nt. There are 711 acres of p~ivate lanJ, including a ranch headquarters, in this upstream segment alone. In addition, a railroad that usually receives daily commercial use traverses the area for about 20 miles upstream from Clarkdale.

The Forest Service has recognized the value of riparian tree regeneration and bald eagle habitat. Thus, appropriate cattle cxclosures in sensitive areas are already included under present management plans and these exclo~ures would be constructed ''without constraints that may be imposed by designation," as stated in lhe report.

The report also states thut "existing water quality would be maintained or improved in all alternatives" to meet the standilrds of the State of Arizona. In addition, there are built-in safeguards that preclude large upstream uses of water. This preserves essentially natural free-flowing river condition$ without Wild and Scenic River Desiqnation. Most river water is used downstream and, according to the report., "existing water rights should prevent excessive diversion and loss of flow in the study segments."

The r~port concludes that a projected recreation use increase in the study segments could have an adverse impact on archeo­log ica l sites or wildlife populations, including nesting bald eagles. Although recreation use is expected to increase, regardless of the alternative chosen, it is interesting to note that, with current trends, the increase would be nearly Lwice as grcLlt with Wild anCT Scenic River Designations -than under contjnuulion of prcsenl management. Thus, adverse i1~pact.s on wildlife and damaqe or vandalism to archeological sitc~s would UtJpdrcntly be least 11.kely to occur with a continuation of present management options.

Present management serves the dual objectives of proper cconomi.c development and environmental quality. Both have been servea effectively in the past. Any Wild and Scenic River Desi9n<ltion would foreclose future development oppor­tunities as we11 as the multiple use management concept that provides a mix of goods and services welcomed by residents in the areu. The positive aspects of designation are out~ weighed by the negative uspects and by lost opportunities. In add.ition, the anticipated amenities are already larqely avail<:lble without designation and will be preserved under a conLinuation of present management as noted ubove.

We reconuncnd that Alternative A, the "no action" altcrnat:ive, be selected. Of course "no action" does not me.an that management is absent. On the contrary, continuation of present management will provide the Forest Service the necessary flexibility to maintain an attractive free-flowing river environment as it has in the past without an additional layer of bureaucratic restrictions that appear to represent regulatory overkill.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this response on the Verde River Wild and Scenic River Studye

KJC/I

Yours very trulyt

{ , , I

, \ ,

- Kei ;_~ ,J. Coke Chief Geologist &

Resident Agent

Alterna~ive ~ (Prefer Designation of River Segment B)

Arizona Wildlife Federation

Arizona Resource Council

Arthur Geldon, Flagstaff 86001 Marie Wheat, Camp Verde 86322

-113-

... ... """

November 11, 1980

Forest Supervisor Prescott National FOrest P.O. Box 2549 Prescott AZ 86302

Regards to comments on the draft notice of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Verde Va 11 ey, Arizona.

After due consideration, The Arizona Wildlife Federation executive board supports the premise that the area on the Verde River from Beasley Flats to Table Mtn. should be conserved in che principal of multiple use.

The major use of this area should be managed for U1e benefit of the public in that it has some natural Wildlife and Scenic benefits. Any private construction or home building that would take place or, the land could be detrimental, thus depriving the general public of an area that has natural beauty to be used for their enjoyment and apprec1 at1 on of their heritage.

Alternative 11 B" and 11 (11 are the most highly considered alternatives of the four being offered. If left with no other choice than to choose one of the alternatives it would be 11 6 11

• However, those are~s to be considered for alternative 11 C11 we would make the reconunendat1on tha~ the private developer leave a park area on the river front for the publics access and enjoyment.

Because of the possiblity of a dam being build just south ?f the . Table Mtn. area on the Verde River we would suggest that the Wild <les1g­na ti on area at the confluence of the Fossil Creek and Verde. R1 ver point to the Table Mtn. be considered to have some other designation that . would not prohibit the controls of water through the Verde River area.

The main reason for this is in time of drought the wildlife suffer because of lack of water. The ba1d eagle which resides in this area would be limited in its food supply.

Respec~)ul ly Submitted,

Tom C~1~ '-Vice Pr~sident Arizona Wildlife Federation

TC (.:. ~'-- ~~ -:.,:.: l"d ,hr,~h .. ~ 10,,,t:lPnrmprlv Thi" Ariiona Game Protective As~oriat1nn • St;itP Afff!i<lte of Tlif' N:>!t,nn<il W1lrllif"' J"p,.(pr.'ltinn w,,.,bTn~t,.;n n r.

November 12, 1980

Forest Supervisor Prescott National Forest P.O. Box 2549 Prescott AZ 86302

Arizona Resource Council P.O. Box 790 Glendale, AZ 85311

In regards to comments on the draft notice of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Verde Va 11ey, Arizona.

After due consideration the Arizona Resource Council supports Alternative 11 8 11

, which encompasses the Verde River from Beasley flats to Table Mtn. and should be considered in the principal of multiple use.

Areas to be considered for Alternative "C 11 we would make the recom­mendation that the private developer leave a park area on the river front for the publics access and enjoyment.

Lastly, it is our understanding that the management of the river and surrounding land would remain in the hands of the Forest Service after the inclusion into the Act and that little to no improvements would be done until warranted. We understand the need to keep our wild rivers just that, wild and natural and the inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers Acl seems to do just that, protect our lands from industrial and commercial expansion.

However, we do not understand why it took a National Act to get people to look over the situation. Why couldn't the state of Arizona implement this Act without the help of the rest of the nation. Surely Arizona would have d better understanding of the situation than anyone else.

Respectfully,

~~~~~ Ni ta S. Heeter President Arizona Resource Counci 1

nh dw

Darlene K. Weber Vise President Arizona Resource Counci 1

Alternative~ (Prefer Designation of River Segments A & B, Excluding 5 1/2 Mile Private Land Section)

Arizona Game and Fish Uepartment

*Center for Public Affairs

*Deµartment of Health Services

*Arizona Department of Public Safety

*NACOG, Region III

*Central Arizona Association of Governments

AORCC, Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Committee

Prescott City Council

Coconino Sportsmen

National Audubon Society

Prescott Audubon Society

The Wildlife Society

The Prescott Junior Women's Club

Salt River Project

U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service

*Submitted State Clearing House Standard Form - "ProposaJ is Supported as Written"

Geoffrey Platts, Carefree Mrs. Buster Estes, Sedona David Duckett, Prescott Peri Harkins, Prescott May Overton, Prescott Francis Moore, Prescott George Pearson, Prescott Larry Langstaff, Tempe Peter Corbett, Clarkdale Marcia Herriott, Prescott Bill Fleishmann, Prescott Lester Womack, Prescott

85377 86336

-115-

A. W. Scott, Prescott 86301 Bert Leper, Clarkdale 86324 Bill Brent (no town) William Gaud, Flagstaff Arthur Frost, Sedona Virginia Miller, Prescott M.E. Pearson, Prescott Eloise Moore, Prescott Vera Walters, Prescott Phil Herriott, Prescott Thomas Fleishmann, Prescott Beverly Womack, Prescott

Alternative C

Roy Houser, Prescott Berdella Bancroft, Prescott Edward Backas, Prescott Gertrude Artni tage, Prescott Carl Tarnoff, Prescott David Preston, Prescott Margaret Laird, Prescott Peggy Ford, Prescott Charles Spenser, Prescott Don Williams, Phoenix Mr./Mrs. R.O. Withers, Prescott Peg ~riney, Prescott Alma Greene, Sedona William Evans, Prescott Thomas Ferrell, Rimrock Kenneth Hodges (no town) John Heckman, Prescot Maria Carccia, Prescott Anne Bower, Prescott Susan Kiesel, Prescott Wayne Watson, Phoenix Rick Alexander, Prescott Sam Vaughns, Camp Verde Grace Palrner, Prescott Gary Vesperman, San Mateo, CA Lynn Jacobs, Cottom-10od

David Wolf, Flagstaff Ruth Backas, Prescott Charles Armitage, Prescott Peg Boyce, Prescott Douglas Hulmes, Prescott Sandra Scott, Prescott Georgette & Robert Sullivan, Prescott James Spenser, Prescott Frank Lett, Prescott Nolan Hester, Prescott Anne Valentine, Prescott Valley Alan Loeake, Tucson Steve Fletcher, Prescott Jo Ellen Bernstein, Prescott Jeanne Clarke, Prescott Loucile Heckman, Prescott Lin Sonnenberg, Juneau, AK Sandy Simpson, Prescott Jeff Dann, Prescott Mr./Mrs. John Crane, Camp Verde Peggy Chaikin, Flagstaff Robert Rothrock, Cottonwood Mrs. Dale Carlsen, Cottonwood Jim McCarthy, Phoenix James Cowlin, Phoenix

-116-

... ... ~

BRUCE BABBITT, Go11"11M

\ ,\ ~ '\

C. GENE TOLLE, Phoenix. Chairman WILLIAM H. BEE:RS, PtQ$COt! CHARLES f. ROBERTS, 0 D, Bisbee FRANK FERGUSON. Jl=l .. Yuma FRANCES W WEANER. Tucson 1 \,

~~;~~TA JANTZEN ~? \' ) ARIZONA GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT

~6;~R~~'~'~~ENEWALD . .22:22U/u£~......, ~ O'K.-. ,A,,J""",SS{).23 94:l-3(}()J

CD

@

Mr. Donald H. Bolander Forest Supervisor Prescott National Forest P. O. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Dear Mr. Bolander:

November 21, 1980

Re: Verde River - Draft Environmental Statement and Wild & Scenic River Study

The Arizona Game and Fish Department has reviewed the referenced documents, and the following comments are provided;

The Department strongly supports the preferred alternative Alternative C. This alternative will provide much needed riparian habitat protection, zoning restrictions, and enhance the Department's efforts to reestablish the River Otter.

. For.the.most part, we believe the Service did an excellent job in the w1ldl~f~ portions of the draft document, however, we do have several specific suggestions that would more accurately depict species occurrence and resource values.

Page A-2, Gray Hawk

There is only one record of Gray Hawk north of the Gila River :~~r~~t~~~eding records. Listing this species here is probably not

Page A-2, Tiger Salamander

Ambys~orna tigrinwn stebbinsi does not occur in this part of Arizona, t ough other more common subspecies do.

Page A-4

The Buff-breasted flycatcher may possibly occur in this part of Arizona, although there are no recent records. Even when formerly

AN EQ\JAL OPPOFITUNITY AGENCY

©

®

®

Mr. Donald H. Bolander - 2 - November 21, 1980

Page A-4 (Cont'd)

more common in the State, the area in question was at the extreme northern limits of its range.

Gila robusta seminuda is restricted to the Virgin River and does not occur in the Verde River. Minckley (1973) lists G. r. robusta in the Verde, not G. r. grahami.

Pages 25-27

The Department supports the proposed program of excluding live­stock grazing in areas of vital riparian habitat along the Verde River. This habitat is essential to maintaining those qualities that have made wild and recreational designations possible. Re­moval of livestock will effectively enhance and protect the long-term value of the river.

The report states that the river did not meet the criteria for "recreation value'' because it didn 1 t have one or more of the elements of that criteria. With all the hunters, fishermen, back­packers, birdwatchers, picnickers, and others that are attracted to the Verde on weekends, it is hard to believe that the river didn't meet a criteria based on variety of'users.

In several areas of the report, the need for increased access­ibility and facilities is stressed as necessary, due to a protective designation. This would certainly seem to contradict and defeat the objectives of the proposed management plan. Certainly there is a need for sanitation facilities at some points along the river, even now, but there is no apparent need to increase access. The wildlife and the primitive nature of the river will be jeopardized if roads are built and increased use is encouraged. The main directive of the Forest Service should be to maintain and improve, where possible, the natural qualities of the area.

-.... OD

Mr. Donald H. Bolander - 3 - November 21, 1980

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review the subject documents and to offer comments.

RKW:dd

Sincerely,

Robert A. Jantzen, Director

~{~~~4.k Habitat Evaluation Coordinator Planning and Evaluation Branch

cc: Levi Packard, Supervisor, Flagstaff Regional Office

!. The Gray Hawk was removed from the Threatened and Endangered Species Li st as suggested.

L. The Tiger Salamander was removed from the Threatened and Endangered Species List.

3. Considering there are no recent records of the Buff-breasted Fly­Cdtcher in the Verde River area and the river being dt the extreme northern limits of its range, the bird was removed from the Threat­ened and Endangered Species Li st.

4. Gila Robusta Seminuda was removed from the Threatened and Endanger~d SpeciesLTSf as suggested.

5. PI ease not~ that the current policy of excluding livestock grazi ny in areas of vital ripdrian habitat along the Verde River is not the result of this study. See statement on page 25.

6. The study team did agree that the recreation opportunities were many along lhe Verde River. However, considering the current use is com­paratively low and access is limited it was decided that the river did not have "outstanding remarkable 1

' recredtion value. The situa­tion could change if legal access is obtained and the need for st.ream-side recreation increases in the future. See Recreation Value section on page 34. -----

7. There are no current plans tu construct new access roads to the river. All references in the report to construction and/or recon­struction apply to existing roads. Some new construction would be necessary in the vicinity of the river to avoid private ldnds or to provide a satisfactory river crossing. The f . .iroposed improvements consist of sanitation facilities and parking areas which are needed for obvious redsons.

Salt River Project WATER +POWER

BOX 1980 PHOl:_NIX, ARIZONA 85001 TELEPHONE 27J·5900

©

®

©

November 21, 1980

Mr. o:mald H. Bolander, Supervisor Prescott Nntional Forest P. 0. Pox 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Dear Mr. Polander:

RE: Verde River Wild arrl Scenic River Study -Draft Envi1onmental Statement..

The atove rep:nt has been reviewed by several departments within the Salt River Project aOO we have the following corrrnents:

SPECIFIC CO!'MENTS

Page 3, Second Pa1ag1aph: The Draft EIS st.ates that:

'The primary issue emerging from public involveme1:t is, 11 Should. the Verde River arrl its immediate envirorunent (study corridor), or portions thereof, be designated as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System?" This question was raised by local governments, Salt River Project, .•. '

No such question was included in previous SRP coimnents.

Page 4, Fourth Paragraph: 'lttis reads:

"Unobtrusive gauging stations arrl their continued. rn.3intenan<?e are al lo~ under a wild and scenic river designation if there is no significant adverse effect on the natural character of the area."

t:efinitions should be provided for the terms "unobtrusive" and "significant adverse effect."

Page 35, Eighth Paragraph (1.~):

'lllis should mention that there are two stream gaging statioi;s located on this segment: Verde River Near Paulden arrl Verde ru.ver Near Clarkdale. l\ccess to both gages is by road.

Page 37, Second Paragraph (Reference to Segment B, South Section):

It should re mentioned here that an existirg SRP stream gaging Station (Verde River Below East Verde River) is located on this stream segment. Helicopters are the ooly operational ueans of access•

.... .... co

®

©

Mr. D::inald H. Bolander Page 2 November 21, J 980

Page 37, Section C, Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives:

'lhese criteria should include consideration of potential need for future stream flow monitoring facilities and water resource developments as may be needed to rreet local and downstream power, water and flood control requirements.

Page 41, Footnote: '!he change from the original "study segment B" to a new study segment B" that is about ll miles shorter is confusing. '!he

modified study segment should have been called something else.

GENERAL COMMENTS

'!his draft report awears to be well written, comprehensive and readable. We would like to complement the authors on an unusually clean and complete report.

Should Alternative C be adopted as recommended, the lowet portion of Segment A (proposed for Recreation designation) and the uwer portion of Segment B (proposed for 9::enic designation) could be made unusable as potential sites for coal-fired poWer plants and water exchanges by Verde Valley residents for CAP water could become inpossible. It is our tmderstanding that !Ecreation designation wuld have no effect on the operation arrl maintenance of either the Verde River Near Paulden or the Verde River Near Clarkdale stream gaging stations.

While we have concerns about the need for future water developnent and flood control facilities and so have some reservations about placing any restrictions on such actions within the SRP watershed, SRP will not object to the rec""11Tlended Recreation and Scenic designations.

under Alternative C the lower portion of Segment B wuld be assigned a Wild River designation. 'Ille Draft EIS does not specifically discuss the SRP Verde River Below East Verde River stream gaging station that is located within this area. '!his gage is maintained by helicopter as oo road access exists. We doubt that this gage wuld be oonsidered to be "unobtrusive" and doubt that it can be made less conspicuous. As you are aware, stream flow monitoring is a major ooncern of SRP, state and federal agencies and the residents of the Phoenix area. Any actions that could iJTpact the operation, maintenance, and even the replacement of any _gaging station would be met by strong 0(4>0Sition. While SRP is not opposed to wild and scenic rivers designations per se, we are, as mantioned aOOve, concerned about limiting opportunities for future water suwly and flood control actions, and, especially, about adverse impacts on existing and future stream gaging stations.

If the Wild River designation can be written in such a manner that this gaging station and all future reconstruction or replacement, operation and

®

maintenar:ice c;:ictions, inclt.rling helicopter access, will not be effected by such designations, the Salt River Project will oot owase it.

It awears that designation of an area as wilderness or wild and scenic river ~ends. to attract user attention to the designated area. The resulting increased use often is accompanied by severe inpacts on the very values that were to be protected by the designation. We suspect that this effect may occur ?" the Verde River, should it be designated, with resultant water quality problems and other environmental inpacts. 'niis Draft E.I.S. d0es not address this possibility, and we believe that it should.

In summary, the Salt River Project can support the recommended Alternative C, .Provided that the l?roposed designations will oot adversely effect the ex1stl.ng stream gagu>3' stations or the operation and maintenance actions that will b> associated with them.

Sincerely,

Glenn D. Harris Environmental Services Department

GDH:rsg

Forest Service Response to Salt River PrOJect 1 s corrunents:

1. The primary issue statement in sub-section D on page 3 has been revised to reflect your concern.

2. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires a Management Plan to be de­ve 1 ope~ for each river included into the Nati ona 1 System. This docu­ment w111 be based on more i ndepth studies and wi 11 address the terms and definition you want clarified. SRP will be contacted for their input during the deve1 opment of the pl an.

3. The two stream gauging stations have been added on page 35.

4. The stream gauging station has been added on page 37.

5. The eva~ua~ion cr~teri~ were developed early in the study process fr?m existing 1egis1at1on, regulations and public input. They were written broad ~nough t? cover the issues and concerns voiced during our early scoping meet1 ngs. The study team has considered your request and have conc1 uded- - -even though not specifically mentioned in the evaluation criteria, stream flow monitoring facilities and water resource developments are i nvo 1 ved ; n one or more of the criteria.

6. The study segments were not modified. The study of the additional 10. 5 1111 l es was cons 1 dered as a separate Alternative L See page 44, Alternative Eliminated From Further Consideration.

7 • The fifth paragraph on page 57 has been rewritten to reflect your concerns.

8. See the last paragraph on page 47.

... N 0

CD

Q~'f~ ~~e~

November 20, 1980

Mr. Donald H. Bolander, Forest Supervisor Prescott National Forest P. O. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Dear Mr. Bolander:

Thank you for sending a copy of the Verde River Draft EIS and Wild and Scenic River Study. The following are suggestions you miqht find useful in preparing the final EIS.

we concur with the U.S. Forest Servicc 1 s recommendation that Alternative C, the preferred alternative, should be implemented on the Verde River. We support adequate protection for the wet­land and aquatic habitats of the river, thereby helping to ensure the continued survival of numerous wildlife species which are dependent on these habitats for their survival.

several localities mentioned in the text of the report do not appear to be listed on any map. Locating these names on a map in the final EIS would be helpful:

1)

2)

Page 13 - Bear Siding Road (FS #182), Packard private lands access road (FS #131), and Forest Trails 41, 66 and 67.

Page 19 - Brown Springs, Cold Water Creek, Sycamore creek, Oak Creek, Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, and East Verde River.

we also urqe a reevaluation of the section "Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration" beginning on page 44, before the writing of the final EIS. By January 1981, the_ . Central Arizona Water Control Study (CAWCS) should have eliminated several structural and nonstructural elements and formulated five or six systems (combinations of elements) for flood control and regulatory storage. If a modified Horseshoe Dam, New Horseshoe Darn and the two lnrger size Cliff Dams are not part of the formulated systems, then the section of the Verde Riv~r be­tween Tangle creek and Table Mountain should be included in

Mr. Donald H. Bolander - 2 - November 20, 1980

the final EIS as proposed for wild river designation. If any of the aforementioned elements are included in the proposed systems, then the consideration and evaluation process for this section of the Verde River should be delayed until completion of Stage II of the CAWCS. If the selected system for flood control and regulatory storage will not impact this section of the Verde River, then the evaluation process for wild river designation should be resumed.

If possible, in Table 4 on page 46, the future with and future without date of 1990 should be extended farther into the future.

Finally, a Literature Cited section or Bibliography should be included in the final EIS and would be most helpful.

We thank you again for considering our suggestions. We look forward to reviewing the final EIS.

BB:dd

Sincerely,

~b- Pdt,)W.f!,t Bob Barsch President

Forest_ Service _R_esponse t_9. the Wi ld~i_f~ ~~t.,y_' s cornmen_t,~:

1. We have ddded the localities to the river segment maps on µages 14 and l~. Thank you for brinyiny this oversight t.o our attention.

2. The section on Alternatives Eliminated From Further t.valuat1on page 44, has been revised--:-see5e.CCTOn~rJµcndix C a·n Flood' Control Aclivities (CAWCS) and Section VII, Identification of Lhe PreferredAlternati_V£• page 67. -------- --

3. In makiny the recredtion use projections to year 1990, we hdve assu111ed that the fJdSt use trend will continue in 1.he future. To project the expected recreation use for a period of more than 10 to 12 yedrs wou l rJ involve 111any more variables such as energy shortage, employment~ i11flation, and etc. For the purpose of this report, it was decided the intorn1ation in Table 4 was adequate.

4. Considering lhe li1nited amount of rublished literature cited in lhe docu1rient, it was decided a bib l i D<Jraphy section would not be required.

... N ...

tff~ United States · \t.l..IJH Deoartment of ~ Agriculture

Soil Conservation Se Nice

P.O. Box 2890 Washington. D.C. 20013

Subject INTERA - Wild and Scenic Rivers -Verde River, Arizona

Oate [;[_p

©

@

@

r" Charles R. Hartgraves, Director, Land Management Planning Forest Service

1380

~le have reviewed the Verde River Draft Environmental Statement and Wild and Scenic River study as requested in your August 22, 1980, memorandum. The report clearly lays out four alternatives. It is our considered opinion that Alternatives B or C offer the most compatible configuration given all involved factors. Alternative C appears to be a wise selection as the perferred alternative. It presents a mix of outputs expected by both local and broader interest groups.

The Principles and Standards require formulation of plans serving coequal national objectives of National Economic Development (NED) and Environmental Quality (from page 39). Alternative A is considered the NED alternative, as it does not foreclose future development. There are no firm proposals for development. Conjecture of future development was not used to establish possible value of future development. Consequently, no monetary value was determined for the option of future development. This distorts the effects shown in tables 5 & 7. According to these tables, Alternative D is the best NED plan.

Regeneration of hardwood concerns wildlife managers according to the second paragraph on page 25. The statement implies cattle grazing is the cause of the problem. Will regeneration occur with implementation of management plans prepared under the aH:ernatives?

The Cultural and Historic Background on page 10 is interesting. lie suggest reversing the first two phases of the Archaic Period to read, "As the climate changed, the game herds died out .... "

.• ) r_c-//; I ·/ / J. 'A.Ct1<;J far I ·· /} , .../__,

tDGAR H. NELSON SEP 2 3 1980 Di rector Basin and Area Planning

Forest Service Response to Soil Conservation Service's comments:

1. D~e to the number of comments received regarding the NED alterna­tive, the study team reanalyzed the NCO account and concluded no true NED alternative exists. See statements on pages 34, 40 and 49.

2. As stated on page 2~) the Forest Service has completed an action pr?grain for resolution of the apparent livestock - riparian con­flicts. It has been determined that the program, with minor con­s~raints on, fence construction, is compatible with designation. Livestock w111. be excluded from key riparian areas that need cotton­wood regenerat 1 on regardless of designation action taken.

3. We have made the change on page 10 as suggested. Thank you for your comnent.

!:'-r,..1L 5uf<'f'v, ~·er l"n5c\·tt fVobe,,1.:l Fo.,.,..,t;-p C. \;,o)'; JP!'/

Pr('"-dt-.1 11~ f£JcL

T

De" Lu. 11. ,,~, .I/VJ,\ W. Ca,?teJ bilt}.1 Arf: J\J-1D

Fh.:ic>-1i)I/ trc ss-ol9'.

.; ::- sl:.i't1n.il'1 cri;pl"e V-'1t-\ 1 ': c~ 8-i~ fiv.c.lrn'JS

c\('.('-'''l''"'1l a.1-ot.1 u_·,tl.-i HH• p•·'r trt>d o.lt-err1.:d:.1ve.

~cl,• 11 ''t: ~rel "!-'-'ol,f1ecJ l-v )1",'-'-\.i~ O»'.j Cc1n1ne>1b- ciboL~ ":.>~vc\j )C<jf'i.,..,,,t_ A CA--'> l ho.vc syer..l L•!-t-lc. L10,;C'.: !'1 f:-:·.f--0.YiC.. L hAv'-'; hc•»<v<·'r""~ sp,-,.1!:. o 90c-cJ c\t>PJ-. C'S: {,lYn~

1_1'1 S"tuuj Se51nC"vit B_, L-om Co-!:-tonwood 13,.__s1.., l-o t-J.., jUHctici., o)- t--\.,( Vr1de cq.,<l .t;'""o,.st- v~.dt ·i'.\ .. (Yf",

Fi,·!>t,, r r\i,I Ce,t:c.11 OH<; e>'rl'.JY' of foct, rt.! V(Tde !tot" 5p(1Y>cj~ fl'.'sorl;:. b»-.:1\c\1vi'1 (:Ld nu\; buvi-i P.1 1q56' as 15

5l,,t.e.J OV' P"'-'1~ ,.., bvt-- 0\'1 .Ja11un"'i"j h.)J Jq G:.1, rn 1q~~s

© •b lJv1clf'Y-1.A>(>i.1t b-).,,e lcq·t c:J-..-,~ngc oJ- ownr'rsh'i'' Tlie

t.:l"'c~t. V.r"c.. e<.rov"'rJ l:--ti, bc...t).-l1vrCj J'"'-'ls, Che. st-.-fs clowv1

tu 1:--\,e. 1':'-l::--\...1vi'-) oool~ i::zy,.cJ l::-he sus17evn1ov1 bndue

-f:-\-i.al Ufrd b 5fc;,_~ ~: '(1:.,c.r" o.t- t-he. bc,,\:-Livitl po;l.-5

Wtye_ a.L\ COi.-t:O-l-YVcb·<l b'.:J ~e new Ol.<..>n~Y-1 i:::r.f..t~• IC?S8

T do d<Sa~ree oho~ 5 1'j wi!,.1,, Jc/,, 5lc.<cmt» t, o,, f"~, I'\ ~~dee \ "°''°""(OML v~1,,, ', Hrnt tJ,, V"cl. f'Ov,Jr;

no oulstei'.1d11'\glj remc;:..rho..\,ie '' rccyi:af::to,-,al cppo1tun1t1eJ.

YI~ Cv'f"•"cvzl "f.0't pL,tb:-.tJ>J H'P '/e.'q~e /Lit ~171''"'(~~ <lg

pro\Jidl'. 0.. "rCCff'(•t<.Cf1o\. 0ppc-rtvY1,t-'j t-hc..t- l:O hc'th

OV\:.s\:.cq...,c\1~1~ O'Vld Un1'1.-Ue (.A.ltt-h1vi t1,,e 5):-a.t_e) ·Thl".H' (17(>

t-\.., LC<~!;:- o\. b--k-t hot- n-11)'1c: .. ro..l sp11n9l' 1¥1 AnJcYlc< t-li"""t ore Df1'">1 to t\~e. p1.·b L11,.. T1-ie~ Q.yc_ u\su u"~ OYll~ OY1~5 >1-1 AnJC1<1e<_ 01--1 c. perern-i1D..\ 5l:;y.-al'VI vv•tl.. coo L

... N N

/;l ~' " l)._J[,lcr )V-'IYJ)n>JYIJ o-.ecl'S, n~c..-c ,t..._ ":>pr1y.>3:i.

nH.-.t.1:11.~d {'11 ro<Je !7) Veyde l-lr1t Spr>Y1lj.3 :ibi!I c)yCIU)

lc..-,.ge CIOlVtb Tllf ri~1,,1-nL:i of.. U1 .. rl'c>plt" s·r:t>n-i t,i be.

tn.'.-n t\,t r1,_'rn» - ~'"le>- - T'""'fC': a.11c\ Flarjs't-c:d·} a..,-e"j

IJ..'tf:I, [, ',1(1h1;,r, ... ,.t nvrnb~T r"f?rY1 Tvc.sc>r1 aricl OCCOJJCnt:..l

Ou!:-o't-n."(.te u1~ 1 tcin Lem 01 fe-1y 01..U"J !l.) /'l.11ri11,._1ut'"' Lfncl

Vvo.1hlYHJ l:,c,,, r L1:l1~vc_ f:-'\..Hcl L-\1c nvmbn..! a5· recpl~ U...1l\\,~. 1 l .. ' c\Y'1,,,. o.. fa1y\j loF>') c::\1-~tuYJtc (1~1 ~Hr-H ol­

ILO n11le) \.)'•~-\., (; 5,r~·11~l((<).•!L d1-. tCl\H( o~ c--\1)-t Y()rq_\

1r,r\1r1.\r.1 li,._~ -h\-,1 Cl,,-r(< ~~ p1ov•d" •',,ut:.tn1~d•.ill i I~

rieL ''rrn'aY"hnblt ~ l(crru.tior>c.l Offo,.l:unil:-'j

Over ~· fv,rlj ( r• nod oS-- obSC"("vc.t.irn aY1c\

\\1(YCUJ i~Cl 1\'ltCir~ t-\1f CAYC<.. (oppro>:!>Watel'j 10

~rtJn )J T heivt C1'..-1C:lvdtcl \.-\-.ut, D- vC--r'j lc.._'fljf' pa.....-t- v!-

t-tH u~'(\\f' Hcl:. :;'f',\Ylr~.5 ! o.1=-broc.bovi OYlr\ t~e "out'">\:C..Yltl1t-u1lj

fCYl'lDl-1-luki\f' • Ttcrrcd.1ovic.~ opp,·dvnd:1P~ 1.hut li-u':l pn:vid{

LH~ 1 ~1 l:-\1f, 1 ·J.Se us u ''cto!:;-\,1,.,~ cpt.io"'ln.L" a-re.<=< dc5r• l<!

Oyi e;;.pl •t-1 l F·-r,.s't. :::ervicc: rc-'3'-'lc..\:10•1 ~.o t-\11 ro~1lY'111j.

-1h1s f"o_ul«bcYJi u...·h,c..L-t ,,,.,"~ put P-ito ~~\,.,t l)') iq77_, has

been d .. t('rctd ro.yt-!'j.J r \<.nol.l.i of- Or//'j C<. .$1YHj!~ l,V!~tc:\11(.:: ~f-- 1t1 f!vrfc·rurnc"!t l3oJt>J OVl 0b.S"''f'"VC.bc ~1 0~ t_\,, .. 1)l'f'-J-'(".

v.,1\no v,,_. \)cl'"edc... Hc't. ~·piiY>ry~·> I sl::ron'111.J bd•f'Ve Boat t}.L

"pvbl•<.. 11vd,t;j'' por·\:.1on of. Hid r~'jVlc~bo.,.., <;,~>c>vl.J bl!.

fC'SlovHircl o.v-d i:he. C<.Yec...._) ab L~cdt 1\-1 t:Me l.ll(•l'llt-'j o~-t:-1.,t Jx,t:.hin') pr.iol'>_, \,e 0H1c.10-l!J d~J1".)Y'll:\'l.e<i C<\.'\ d

/.)\ po1.\:.fc\ n., o. '' ctcl::-hin~ op!:10 .... 1;._L /

o-. ~c.~· Spt>nc<:.

\=.;/lo~ 5r"'"I' '" ""· L"t' ,, rc,,L,,,,,,L Fo<c<L '" ~;,~, Mt.,.ICC' prvv1cle o.I: \,.u':il 01"~ pnrrdc·1·1t }o...- Sucl--i of~\l~\ .:le~•cinu_ti~n 1), 1

1'ctd:h1·"l o;Jl"-•,,,l" P,."P~~ {-l·~ Lh~ one;

1,).11,, 0 c\J Mo~l o~ l:hv ,1-.n1nt:i-,1cq1c'f' of tl-1 f' Oyt'.'c•j p>Lfi.Jn(_1

up lrr.J!-i J c1.ur~1YI") O.JL t_yc.~k, cleo11J»r1 t Li: bo~)lle)() e(lils/

ft:;('

_[ havc: n1.,..,-d r1''t:l1 11'1I .::t.,[:i,,, f:-\1e '1n1pri:>vccl

Ynr,1t 1 o.-.~d 5.-verc-l -lirn-t~ ,,, t-hr dor:urntn-C• Cvrr.-Y1l~,

bt.ier~ Drr:_ r1 '1l'j

Qn-:c, b.,.c\..A,,..e,·1

L-\ie Uro•...._,r,

BO)i>-l '~ (.( \IVYJ

b,,1,)1 c I t:'c:...,l'..<11'- .- ~

1!..

lwc Y~c;Jc~1:<,~IJ good loaJ.i l'rtko ti•<!'.

CobLu"' l·"<'oJ T?a~•r> 'n"o\ ~Yl<jlt Caelt.> r<o,aJ { F5 S7'i ) ~nd H, CJ-,,iJ, Road

•l1.·ic_ I 1,,i.d (rs Jf_,) vr hoyy, blu~clj-

f-h"J c\1rt ro'4c\ reiu1nntJ lc,·•o))

.Ji -VJh< el C.C.'>'1d V~'ij (A,y>!.{vl._ c\(1V•1Hj,

( :-=-5 '57), v.)\i,'- i, jC'\Yl ·, 1::-'::.SDJ~ o\:- U. <

i n-i,·,.,. \-\.-, o\- (\,,,ld'>J .~ sho1tcT }Ji.JI;;-

\-)If, jc\nJ FS 5D:J. jv:.t souc'vi oO:, Cl-.,\c\)

Irnrrou,"l\ u~•'.) c~ic i..~r /::I,, J rotid.s bl~cLt C''fYlt!' 111 tu

ht Vl'HJ<" neay Chile.ts 1,-l.,l)vld proha).,1J _1 v.st.. JYJ<re,,.:Je

-k.r (.)OL<..Jrl cd:- \/eyd~ Hut Sp¥!'>Yltj.5 Tn--iFrOV1•1')

\.~1 1 l\Jij«J. ( FS S? J covtd prou,r_\c. aVi l"\nnc01C of-

50.tc~'-:j J hc._u~'-'t"f CvYYC'vi't... or(e5J' -bu b--\.-i,s OYeD. \~

OVi l:-h~ riul.J.1c-r•sL s1d" 0"5 H .. ~ )'1vrr 1_,1..d1;l* t\.i,. 5)'fl.y1l..jS Cll'<"

OVl L-i..t 5crul:.\..iwf<~ .. S1cJc DvYJY>r' :;pt1Y"j rvvi-0 H- J:~"ye. i\.

COYJSid.n·c..\..\t c:r •H.)l'Y- h. P"r-if\..._ hY'jlY>~ bl'.: CYoH b-t.t nvn--

l:c get. lo h",' ~}')n..;,Jtj'S. /~-.-> lYV1pyo ... ~d Du'J•c.:i RoD-J wu1.1\J

)ayi,l(.t1,-.,, •t "' O-'n:. f'tLb<.\>\"j (l("<.>1\,-c! ci.\:- Vt.:Yc\e \ivt--

5p.,..1YicjS 1\' 'Vb: th" rc~ulb ,,r t:i.-,1·1 sbn\'-j o--r~ ,,.,,,J IVilYl':uS<.:: l)'C«-d1"lcJ Hu: ... \;; ~i, .. ~ rv11Cj4t e>Y1rovYD<Je. foo

t'hCt"I-!'-\ pe1.. yt ... D---rt CU"TY!"'n\::L,) U~h''<' UH u..--yec..._ l<.,...(,\

'lCl>1 1Y.:.+_1cl1 rG.r1l1~irJ oYr nr1·d,.,r\ ~OY rr""a...101-1\ oS /-'JPnll;I...,,

I V.n--, c..l.so Cf'v'l(.>'Y"c·d ohr>,__,t jl,.,. r-'ff,.,t;- cf- clt'~l!jn(.br>-1 ')~ C::. ")CYJ•(. 'k111~Y- I- O., 1;-h,_ (1) c.._l 11-t..-1

Tl1e D.-oft: ho~ vqj L1l-t1 .. le '>nj ""' I .s·1,(:iJ'·cC oLH~,·~jt.i 1::-~<Y'- Or~- nvmr"rou..1 !i~c:s. \•1 H1 " Or<:-<... :'n1p·•0,,,eJ OCcl"'.:.S

bi t-h<" OYe<l. )ov- recr<""a:t10'"'''- L t-LSe 1.U0vtU JTJ('c~n 0..11 1ncrc:OJ1';

\n tht \lurYJ\.Jt:Y c} ,. rut hvr1\:~r > 1'1 b)11"' CiYC'C. cdJD

-N w

be\if'v~ l),~t t-t,~ l?"01111>'Cv1m 0 .1 l:c.l Sb.tern<"Y1t 4h~'vlc\

c.•dc\.r~s5 /;}i~ 10-.,c-.tt'f 1 - ol piot<"ctiun, 11'1v~st:1~ 0 !:-u·v1 J

rc:s<"(:2..-YcJ, 1 CIY>r.1 eve)1 Y'~'> t.G'Ye<t•o., "'~ b~e:se S1\;es. Cve·r

/:-)oe ~ean, 1::-h,- :<>ol:.I" at Tv1 .. ve\ CYreh.. h"'~ o.\wio:st· b.:en

cle)l::To~ecl· .f ci-1.>c b·..:!1rve. l:l~r.t J:..he iri::..U·ey 0 ~ h1~L0Yic«\ (/'!'.Sl"Q.rc~1 Shcv\d bt. uc\c..\Yi-s,!:.t'ci r recerd;/J.

\..veyif:. l::lirou".:i!·i a.li-n,.$t I'.<. '3cay oS- JYlvc·.:Stl·g.,_bv;.,, l:Y:iJ~cj 1:-v hYJc\ \;:\,,"' h,.,Lct'1 o\'.- tl" \/n·cl~ !~ol 5prJ)'111"° lt:"Jort

OYin )ino(A) t\, 0 t 11,.,.-b- h· nv h1:.h··ru.l cic.lc... ci11 t\1-<-

I L"l-1r\ tc ~·00 51 dcr L-L,.. nod:-hr-t'n pa1\:. oS _::-/:1._.cJd S,..rJ)"'nr:.,.1l fS bo b~ "m':'I" river IA'VIC\ 5/:;Y'Ont;,l'-J [avi:f

Ctn~ tf'leqs,;yt>5 lv prclH.t. 0.1'\cJ preSCYve. it ~er- rvi:j eY1jOlj mt"Mt. r 0..71., not 5v'f'e l:-\,.,,t. "\Y>'lprQ-£.)ec..( oc,.·~.s""

OY Co.nlp ov1c,\ r~ci'('c...lio"'c..\_ oYcc, d€.vl'-lorrvi~ .. nts Cl.Ye

rn~asvrn ~L,c..L l.l.>Ovlc\ preserve av.ct p'foll'"c.t 1!::.

Forest Service R.esponse to Don Wi l1 iaJ~~ comments:

1. Thank you for bringing to our attention the error on page 17. We have corrected the year the Verde Hot Springs Resort burned to 1962.

2. As stated on page 68 of the report, a management plan would be pre­pared if the Verde River is designated as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The existing "public nudity" policy would be reviewed at that time.

Mr. Dewayne Morgan U. S. Forest Service Prescott National Forest P. 0. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Dear Mr. Morgan:

January 16, 1980

In response to the National Forest Serv,ce s request for reactions and comments to the alternatives proposed for management of the Verde River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Prescott City Council considered this matter at its January 14, 1980 meeting. However, first, I would 1 ike to take this opportunity on behalf of the City of Prescott to express our appreciation for encouraging comments on these river management proposals. Participation and cooperation such as this certainly helps to insure more compatible and acceptable use of our natural resources.

After an explanation and di scussi Jn of the proposed a 1 ternati ves, the Council unanimously passed a motion endorsing Alternative 11 C11

and opposing Alternative 11 011•

The explanation of each alternative as provided in the December, 1979 issue of "Wild and Scenic Rivers of Arizona", along with con­sideration by the Council as to which alternatives would completely avoid or, at least, minimize any potential conflict with the future use of Prescott's water needs, led to this particular endorsement.

Again, the opportunity to corrment upon this matter is very much appreciated, as is the consideration you will give this endorse­ment. If any further elaboration on this matter is desired, please contact me at your convenience.

AT: vbs

Sincerely,

~--L Andy Tomlins~ Citv Menaqer'[_/

CITY OF PRBSCOTTi

~rescott Audubon ~ociety 544 Glenwood r1.venue Prescott, hcizona 86301 J November 1980

Jonald H. Bolander, ?orest Supervisor Prescott Kational ~crest r-.v. uox 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

: .. e!;Jbers of the frescott r..uc.ubon .-)ociety, comprisin.::; over 200 in~ivi~uals, have revie~ed the ierde ~iver uraft ~nvironmental ~tate­n1e~t anU .'.ild anc .s..eni.c .~ivers ~tuuy anu offer the fol:owing comments for your consioeration.

(e feel that ~on:rres~ was wise in redirectin."_; the water ,YOlicy of our nat.ion ano inst.ructino; us to set asic.ie riparian areas in their n~tural 3ta~e. .'here are very few undisturbea riparian habitats lef~ in th·2 aria ,:.,oui}r.vest and, as -rhe ...:,l.::: stateC, ovET 60 J of the verte-:: . .irote~ in ?"Jreot ~i:;rvicE" lanO.s near the ~erue :i.iver use or require tr.i~~ ~:2bi t:--Jt. fur survival. ~·hese i:-icluc<e t.1-ie enGan::-,nrod ..:outhern nalo ~~a_:le rind .!--erezrine /alcon. .::;or.:e of the rr.ost co:riplex biological com-~uni tie2, ~ot only in tt.e ~outhwest., uut i~ the entire United ~tates, occur al~n·r the .·erce .

.. e fir~ly believe that the Vertle rtiver should oe preservca in its free-flovin~ conaition ant1 fiven as much protection as possiole. lt is clear fro;:i. our reviev: of your comprehensive :Jtuay that. larze portiun;1 of the ·1erd2 meet the exacting qualifications for ild and ~cenic ~tatus. l'o ip-nore this and do notl-1.in?:t as 1-1.lternative f\_ suggests or to ~~~e o~ly a token effort, as implied by ~lternative D, woula be a b~trayal of public trust. ~lthough some members prefer Alternative i.J,

'Ahich pre.wides F!aximum protection, others con:; icier it less prac--cical to i;iple:--1ent anc:i support :.1 ternative 1..,,

iherefore we wish to FO on record as supyorting the iorest ~ervicn in selectir~".: ei thcr .... 1 ternative ~ or u.

..:'hank you for the oyportuni ty to participate in thi::o planr1ing process. ~e offer our name and support in this effor~. If ~e can be of further assistance in this or in other re::;ource ma ti;ers, please feel free to call on our organb:.ation~

9/-:/ </-J </a ,r;;;I;

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

po. eox .1!1!17 • BOULDER. COLORADO 80307 • 13031 499·0219

October 29, 1980

Mr. H.D. Morgan Prescott National Forest P .0. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Dear Mr. Morgan,

Our regional office would like to go on record as supporting either alternative C or D for the Verde River Wild & Scenic Rivers Act proposal.

I am quite f ami 1 i ar with sever a 1 stretches of this very important river as my family 1 ived in the immediate area for close to 15 years. Good riparian habitat is an endangered commodity in the Southwest and as experts have pohlted out, provides extremely important habitat to most species of wildlife.

-),----., Sincerely, ' /

) c:-7 .· /. "----<"' 'µj.;r '\ . ,,-(,A/~'---/ t K. Turner

Regional Representative

AMERICANS COMMITTED TO CON5ERVAllO~

.... N c.n

~orest Supervisor P~escott ~atior;1l Por~st

P.O. flox 2549 Fres)O~~, AZ ~(J~2

De:ir :?:ir:

Coconino Sportsmen P.O. BOX 1301

FLAGSTAFF. ARIZONA 86002

VERDE RIVER

DRAc;>T !;;)!VIROtl'·E)'TAL STATEt·:ENT

-.,!IL!) A!~D s:s~TTC: RIVER STUD"'.:

PAULJBABSITT GORDON EVANS.SA MILTON EVANS MA.ll HAMILTON ARTHURHOLMGAEN \'\llLLIAMMORAALL CB WILSON JR

Sr:cl:rned grr ou:- co:::rr:e"'11::s ·:nH'i selection of a desired al ter!laLi ve to the Draft

"':'., T .3. -3.r.: fl.:.::irll iric·i P.bovc. 'tl~ .,.,;_11 co:nme!'lt rm severa: sp~cific l tcm.s, not

~0CC3Shrily th~ tot~l ~raft .

trav?lers 0r ~se~s, this value cannot be totally overlooked. ~hls !s espe-

(;iall:1 tru2 ~-f :VJid 'i8l11cs are compro:niseC by develop:':ent, :-oa·J:,1ays, eJ~ctri-

cal faci_l i ties or ·:rnter/f1ood control impoundmcr.t devices. Thusly, scer!1C

e.-ise:-:ients, i!lclurlin,s corridor air space, should be placed. into ::ffect, as

listed in Statute 16 C.S.C. 1286. Scenic values such as la~d for~ations,

ti~es ~~ equ~ted i~ dollar values conp::irable to effGcta of their loss. o~~e

.eo:'lr.ro~l s~r:l or lost to wh-3.tever type of develo:p:Yient, these va1 ues never B-c:air:.

J:J.T'-9 :rio~ car h 0 ~nh~:,ced or rcplri.cen t0 ti1eir ori£:)>1;i.l co11ji lions O!' vn.lu:;:;,

Coconino Sportsmen P 0. BOX 1301

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86002

-2-

in th8 ~!~tional Wild and Scenic River Ir1ventory.

PAULJ0All61T'l GORDON EVANS SR MILTON EVANS MAX HAMIL TON ARTHUR H0LM\3AEN WILLIAM MOHRALL CB WILSON JA

i-<'J-;:s [:>i.,CTI?~S JI 1..7S2--Eere agai!1, the value of this ·tern canr.ot

be cn'iputr-d jYJ a rosi-1:",ive v.::ilue. :\dverse r;:o!1d~_tions duri~p;

f1n~r~inc, rever!lle f:·o~ 21tct.rical ·ievices or rta~s. a~~ irra-

Lhe issues conserr~1 jr t~ls Dr~ft will 0!~her aire~tly or i~dlrec~ly affec~

-N OI

c 1 ,, -~; ' (' ~ '

Coconino Sportsmen P 0 BOX 1301

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86002

-J-

.'ta i_ !' 'l.U 011 i '-> \·a:iJ.tS i.r all

thio spc:::-ic:

PAULJ8A68111 LiOIWUN ~VANS SA MILTON !VANS MAX HAMILTOl\i AATHUAHOLMGAfN ''-1lUll.MM0m\/<lL C 6 VolLSON J~

.• - - ' ,·1·;

hy Ji·,:tin"· r:a!llpinJ:_'; an0 acc<:ss so as t0 ;-~strir~l or 1i.:'llt, u~;er r.v:.­

t·~r::; to a rPason8.1i1e r.u·:1l-J.?r, to l i_rr.il ir:',rusi()n on ivili4life '/'·.lu.•_:.:;,

yr:t rcrrr1 it ar1P.qu:1te f'eCT'l->:).~j()f::il ];_~~er1~J,

Coconino Sportsmen P 0 BOX 1301

FLP.GSTAFF, ARIZONA 86002 PA\Jlj BABBITT GC•ROON £VANS SA M<eTON EVANS

·~~Y r:rnv~ 3ufficient fcJr all !:eed3 except f·m~r£P~cy,

MA!< HAMIUON ARTHUR HO!MGAfN 1VIL!<AM '.l0~RALL C 8 W•LSO'< JR

th~ desire ro~ s_:iace a::d

b1 r·r·oviJeQ o:r.l~' by as 101/1

ri 1 ari3.~'.

tpo1-'/fl'. 1 : this ite·-: ~ocs i,,.. fac-:t bring adverse iTp::ict~~ to

~·;r .: 1.~L~ ~-·091;lation jn some areas, to divert, or co~trol by flood

0xplorE1rl ir viable arB~S and desi3~3 ~~:e~e the 'lerde River in l t's

~ild ~nd $cen1c s~~te woul1 not be.affected.

SPON~OR MfMBfll<,

Coconino Sportsmen P.O. BOX 1301

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA B6CXXt

-5-

LIFE MEMBERS

PAUlJBABBITT GO~OON EVA~S SR Ml!. TON EVAN$ MAX HAMILTON ARTHUR HOLMGREN WllllAMMORRALL C8 WILSON .JR

Also that Wildlife and wildlife habitat of all species be

e;iver. !Jriority status within any and all rnanage:nent plans.

\le realize that some economic and social potential will be

a'1verse1y i m:i8.cted wj thi r, the dC!signated corricor planned. He do not necess-

ari J y co>;r.cr1!'! econo'.'1ic .:;ro·.-;th of any fashion where viable, \\rj thout co:o1pro-

niisi~~e '1il1dlif~~ v:3.luc::; en· conce}""its as ir.. this study. While SOr!!e CO::lStraints,

~~3~~1ctiOPS a~a comp2nsatio~s will affect landowners within the plan conce~t,

Lhr7 V8.lues yiru.served and e~h.=inced in the long ter;-:; will become :10re .sjs:r:ifj_canl

·.-,'c thi;rPfo.re co-,.,cur aryl selec-.t alter!'lat~ve nr::;n as our propo~ed alLerr:ative;,

~a a Wild a~a Scenic Waterway.

cc! '.'.?.. "ax f1eterSO"f1. ~oco~ino rat. ?orest 3ur rvisor Tor.to Pat. ?Drost Su:i~.t·v sor Arizo~a ~!ilcllife ~cd9rat on

SincerelYi 1 /.,I

"z~,/2 ~'zJ----Ace H. Peterson, rres. Ge>conino .Sports:-r.en

F .-._,~ f _;; ~ -"\..--u-...--'--'( 5-;,_-~__,._

p l' 13:;;: :; s '/ 'j

?! I~-)/ qF-t .5 J. Cl_,,-ttcy~_,~1 ,4 z_.

St ':tu-

I- ,.--,,...., t 1:-(__ (:~~-__,~

c;f . ~- R_~-<---<- / ~ '-~) ~---.. -~-(

~ i-<_ ,,__f-,_, ___ _

;~L

L~-

Alt~_r:!_ative Q (Prefer Uesignation of River Segments A & B, Including 5 1/2 Mile Private Land Section)

Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission

Laura Corbin, Tucson C.O. Minckley, Flagstaff Edward Zuk, Prescott Llaniel Fischer, Tucson Uavid Palmer, Prescott Grace Palmer, Prescott Martha Fabian, Prescot Charles Aid, Prescott Cari Bloor, Prescott Renee Mason, Prescott Madeline Alston, Prescott Letitia Morris, Prescott Kim Reynolds, Prescott Randy Bergan, Flagstaff

-128-

Michael Berry, Tucson W. Gary Lockrow, Flagstaff Llouglas Hulmes, Prescott C.J. de Ward, Tucson Joni Bosh, Phoenix Mike Borgen, Prescott Philip Latham, Prescott Kathaleen Fletcher, Prescott Joanne Mees, Prescott Marianne Locke, Prescott Joel Barnes, Prescott Kate Udall, Prescott Maria Patterson, Prescott

... N

"°

19 Septerber 19$0 2820 N 1st Street Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

Forest Supervisor "rescott National Forest F. 0. 'lox 2549 Prescott, Arizona 80302

.Jear Sir,

J have just reviewed the Verde River Draft Environmental St ~t .:::::cr.t and Wild and Scenic H.i ver 3tudy, a!1d have comm.er.ts o~ the 3tatu3 of the scikedace a~d aq11a~ic 3rails occurring ir: tf'.A Verde River and. alone the proposed corridor.

':'he spjkedace, Heda fulgida,_a~though once widespread ir the Giln iiiver sy3tem, now exh1b1ts a very reduced disr~ritution, with populatior.3 o'.;currir:e: jn southea~:;tern Arizor.a and in the Verde River. ·:lithi;_ the yerde !liver, ~hiJ .fish has been found to occ11r o~ly in a ~ mile reach.near the river tridge on FS 354, in River 3ection A. ;v1ly tl;is "ish only occt;.rs in this section is ~ .. mknov.rn, but makes 1t i~r~ra~ivc that this area be preserved, if this species is to surviv0 in the Verde River. Thi..3 :'act was not apparent in your report, and I ~eel it should have been brou[ht out .

Also, in relation to the aquatic sr.ail fauna, several e~de~ic, undescribed specLe3, exi~t in the proposed area, and 3hould have also been addressed, in my opinion . ...., Ju:h specie.s r~re present in the Verde Hot 3prings and Ei:-oh>r.:> vprir.v, and I a:::. ;:;ure several other species are present in the propo.::;ed corridor. I would 811F-:f£st you contact l•:r .. Jerry Landye, 3465 t:. Jar.dson, Flagstaff, an expert on ~outh·.·;es~er:r: . .sr:ail3, _ for additional information on the3e J.ntere3t1ng invertetrateQ.

Additionally, in response to the C7cralJ pla~, I ~o~ld prefer to see Ai tc>rro.tive D i'11plemer.ted, :~allowed by C ar,d B. I find Alternative A unacceptable.

Sircer'3J:r,

(\0:~~~/!J~_f _)

Forest Service Response _t.9~ C. 0. Mi nck l ey 's comrner"!!:

Thank you for bringing lhc spikedace to our attention. We have included the additional information on page 8:J in the Appendix.

,,;::-~ J:.~,,,~.st7Y' ?~A:/~~~ />. e?. ~O?r' ;u-Y?

.P~A~ ,,,.~~o.z.

e e

8

130

-w -

©

Forest Service Response to Joni Bosh's comments:

!. Table 6 has been revised.

z. The table on page 53 evaluates economic affects of designation bas"u solely on the flow of recreational expenditures. For analysis of tile alterntives, this was the only factor that could be quantified. Criterion 6 on page 65 evaluates both the short and long-term ability to provide a mix of all goods and services. The study team felt that the future options of deve 1 oprnent eliminated by A 1 ternat i ve D more than offsets the increased revenue brought into the area by the recreationist.

3. The study team decided that for cornparat i ve purposes. the number of private land acres were important. The ind i vi dua 1 affect of seen i c easements cannot be determined until the Management Plan is written.

4. One of the requirements of the "Regulations for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act" is to keep the document short and analytical. For this reason, we did not include much of the support material. This data is on file at the Forest Supervisor's Office, Prescott National Forest. Prescott. Arizona.

... w N

ul-HZONA

Ou1uuu1<

RfCHlAT 0,,.

c ,il_Jf/D:NAllNG

CuMM1~~;kw

COMMISSION Rot,o1<1 E P • 1 ( ~•"'"""

'" •1 N R~I""" Vtct (.h;trn1•n

STAFF

" ,,,,01• ,., ,.,,,,n11""' l>"''B·'" \Vay>eLShu•1'•<

13.33 './J~n Co.1nw\Li1Ck Ru,1d .. S-.ute 206 .. \lhoern:i1, Atiuma 850'\3 • (L02\ 255 SGl'l

Mr. Phil <.!1:11<111 \1.11ld um! '.,c, nic I :1v,·r"

f uoito !'lul1u,n: I 01 "·d I). 0. ( '.. )'~ /';ll W I>/ 1n<. ·ni /:. /\/ )) 'J{l ll~

In r ( -.,p·1:1,, to rlw dt·..,11J1irit ion.) of j)\J:·t 1011.\

\ lt11· lnrJf I~(·, ri•t:l H•fl C(1\)f (!1n(lfl1Hj

\ni\1w,>il1(] qv1'\'J(1\ U)lT1111(·11h \or

e''> pi' I. , : ··d -i! h·rrint 1v(·\,

-,;r1·rnn-:. llr('

or H.r·( rcot1<1n \;(·rde Ull(i ~1(111 f- f(lf1c -SC() f\rv{;'r.<,, t)W /\ri;urHJ

{J\01{(:(-). '.vould like 1o tlw yrn.'I con':>idt·11_i\iq1\ ),·, ');IPL ling lhf'" I 1·::-,\

on the stotl''s lirnil'.!d n·so1,rc( "' tlv.";r! l'.',f\f'Cinlly n1·nr urbani1(~d men·,,

\he 1 ori·~t 'd~rvir·t', howcv(·r, will pluy u pivotnl role in scc(Jr1nq recreoliunol tJ',('

lor nt lfH: tH11ni11ing unul!vrt•(! rivc•r re::.rnnr;e~ of the State. Jr1corporuti0r1 of ri (' \;·qrr.vr1h of 1!w \ulll Vi'rde, Un\J Sun f runci.sco r~lvers into the· ~Jotior1r,I \Nild ',( vnic 1\iv(·rs Sy\terr1 will prov1rlt' leqisln11V(', :wnce perpetuol, pro1('C t1(u1 fur th('-ie cr1t1cul ')tr1·um') "Nhik in\1ninq rt.·( rt"otionoJ !l'.>L' by 1he t..WrH:ru! puh\w.

l heref(J((\ 1n r('C\1<J11i!iun of tht' tr('rn1·1H.1u!I\ derncind for river rclCJte(: re<rl'nl1nn nnrJ thP .-,hrn1~1nq :.upply of fr('e-flnwinq river;-,, /l,()j'-{CC '.>llPIJOrt!'i !hr~ follm111HJ nlteroiolivv:,:

')nn r·runc,<.,(0 i~tVN - A.lt1;:·p\(Jlive II '/i~rdr· f--{i 1J(•r AlftTltfll ivl-' I)

J ur9c to giv<' !ht' ll•lk::.t <.uns1dcro1ion to 1 ('( 01,1111e:1di; ,J ;()I fr ')1q1 (Jt1on \,nr 11 r

Wild, ond \-{t'l fl'Ut1on r~IV( r t lus-,di( C!t1or1<.. nil \tl".'f fl\/! I" (1'1 l \( •,nH 11h

thot ql!(llify nnd rnr'et 11w cr1h'r10 fur inclu'>i(HI 1n th<' Sv-,tc1:1.

i ),1 r r 1 ur /') ,;h· L ir 11 ~rn, ( J: f ic r~1

!n rt''1;,.Vv urnJ \ o:r:ri1-: it '111 t!1i\ fc.r.v(]rd tu r\·r(~1vit:q tfw droll

\\\\.."~{ r\V\'l ~.

fi2~:J-ST SL: .. ~;(:£_ ... rrc~c~tt ~~~.hTk3l HlRd

c,,, c!j

OCT;:· l'.1'0

12PRESCOTT CENTER COLLEGE

Prescott National Forest P.O. Box 29070 Prescott, AZ 86301

To Whom It May Concern:

October 3, 1980

I am "'Titing in regards to the recommended designation of Wild and Scenic River Stat'.ls for the Verde. l would like to comr\end your office for producing the well written management plan. l personally would like to offer my support for Alternative D giving the maximum amount of protection for the Verde River. I do feel that Alternative C is also acceptable, and being unfamiliar with the characteristic of private o~mership on the 5.5 miles near Pauldon, I will trust your judgement in making the wisest choice.

I have spent El considerable amount of time on the lower section of the Verde in numerous capacities. In 1971-72 I participated in an extensive bird study of Riparian Communities along the Verde unde:r the supervision of Dr. Roy Johnson and Dr. Steve Curuthers of the Museum of Northerrn Arizona. I have participated in YCC conservation projects at the sheep bridge near Table Mtn. and I have rafted and hiked most of the area being considered.

I have noted bold eagle, golden eagle, black hawk, and the highest species diversity of birds in AZ llong the Verde. The recreational potential for 'Whitewater rafting and Kayaking is excellent. The Wilderness quality and opportunity for solitude is also high.

I feel it is vitally important that these sections of the Verde River be given Wild & Scenic Status in order to maintain and protect the Wilderness, recreational, and ecological values of this ri vcr.

Sincerely,

Douglas Hulmes Professor of Environmental Studies

DI /C:-,2-.2-2 Ii! vie IG_.i

220 GROVE AVENUE I PRESCOTT, ARIZONA 86301 I C602J 778-2090

Earth First (A National wilderness preservation organization)

KOKOPELI (Adventures in learning)

Four Corners Wilderness Workshop

Arizonans for Wild & Scenic Rivers

The IZAAK Walton League of America

Tucson Audubon Society

AWWW (Arizonans for Quality Environment)

Northern Audubon Society

Southern Environmental Council

Steven Rouzek, Karpenta Steven Thompson, Tuba City Mike Schultz, Phoenix Michael Hilty, Phoenix Sylvia Forbes, Tempe Alan Seegert, Bisbee Joan Field, Phoenix Rudi Lambrechtse, Bellemont Bill Williams, Flagstaff Daniel Kaplan, Prescott Kelene Kaplan, Prescott Jim Rooney, Chino Valley James Foster, Chino Valley Kate Allison, Chino Valley Fred Snyder, Sedona Rob Little, Prescott Heather McKay, Flagstaff Carrie Nevill, Chino Valley Michael Boswell, Tucson Dan Oaggert, Flagstaff James R. David, Flagstaff Rita Wuehrmann, Chino Valley William Hence, Chino Valley Wayne & Sharon Haughton, Chino V. Sheila Thompson, Chino Valley Wm. & Evelyn Helmeke, Sedona Deborah Camly, Flagstaff Trish Jahnke, Flagstaff

Rebecca Peck, Douglas Marie Burling, McNeal W. G. Walker, Phoenix Carolyn Downey, Tempe Bruce Berger, Paradise Valley James Posedly, Tucson John Guild, Scottsdale Julianne Weigel, Tucson Gary Lewallen, Chino Valley Oeede Lewallen, Chino Valley Dave Healey, Flagstaff Linda Wilson, Prescott Nigel Dickens, Chino Valley Pat Dickens, Chino Valley Gregory Vanuk, Prescott Douglas Koppinger, Tucson Gref Green, Flagstaff Betsy McKellan, Flagstaff Patty McDaniel, Flagstaff Hank Chaikin, Flagstaff C.R. Wueben, Chino Valley Gary Beverly, Chino Valley Molly Beverly, Chino Valley Warren Wasser, Mesa Eugene Thornesberry, Chino Valley Anita Macfarlane, Sedona R. J. Longtin, Sedona Will Osborn, Sedona

-133-

J

Alternative C or D Plus 10.5 Mile Tangle Creek Section

Sidney Hyde, Rimrock Jane Welton, Sedona Wayne Van hoorhis, San Francisco Jim Vaaler, Phoenix

Donna ~aken, Sedona Maleese Black, Sedona Sandra Lopez, Paulden

-134-

-w U'I

Arizonans for Wild and Scenic Rivers Box 87 Cortaro, AZ 85230 Nove~ber 18, 1980

r.:r. Donald Bola.">'lder, Superv ..L sor Prescott !{ationg,l Forest P.O. Box 2549 Prescott, AZ 86302

Dear ;,:r. Bolander: Ple:ise enter these remarA:s as p.3.rt of your public review

1JCriod for the draft enviromnental statement and wild and scenic river study for the Verde River.

Our orga.~i=ation has carefully exa~ined your alternatives ond do not sapport o.vry of your alternatives. \'le support the

follov:ine;:

1. ::.~ecre2.tion designition for river from Jorest bou.."1.dary nc2r Paulden to Beasley Flats (38.5 miles) including the five a.,d '1 half miles of private land. 2. Scenic designation for the 22 mile section from Beasley Flats to the junction of l"ossil Greei{. 3. "lild designation for 27 .5 miles from Possil Cree:.: to Sheep Bridge, a short distance below ~angle Creek.

The Central Arizona '/later Control study Aug..tst, 1980 newsletter states that the enlargement of rlorses!ioe Dam has been eliminated from consideration on the basis of having the greatest environmental ir.ipact. Earlier, the 'fangle Cree:.O/Verde River confluence d~ was dropped from consideration due to unsuitable geology. There are no dam sites being actively sought now in the 27. 5 mile segment. ·.'ii th this in mind and the fact that our rivers diminish daily, we can only

uree that this lower segnent achieve full protection. '.'le disagree with your analysis of the recreational value vf

the Verde River including your statements on page 34. 'Ne feel tt.at

any river that affords the desert dweller a white water experience of the quality that the Verde affords is providing an outstandingly

remar~able recreation experience. Length of river use season is of no bearine when discus:::;inc a dencrt river's wllite water quality.

2

How mnny places in the world can one drive a few hours from a large metropolitan center, toss a raft, tube, canoe, or ~ayak in the water and flow through a Sagu.aro•lil.ndscape on a river that

still flows free? Heali~~int; thn.t over 10 ,OOO dams constrict strea."!l.s or rivers

in this country and that .003,: of vegetation in Arizona is con­sidered rip3rian, it is essential that ~e place major portions of Ari:;ona' s rivers in the National 1'/ild and Scenic Hiver Syste!Il.

·:re are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the dr'1ft and loo.< forward to hearing from you in the future.

Sincerely

VI:J~~ r.rhoron Lane

Chainnan

Forest Service Response to Theron Lane's £~ent:

1. As ~t~ted in the r~port, the evaluation criteria were n!viewed and modi fled a~ a ~ub l ~ c workshop. Payes 31-34 of tt1e docu;.1ent exp la; n how the determination was made. While there has beed sume question a~ to whether or not the river has '10utstanding Remark.dble" recrea­;,~~~a~~~~~: the study team decided to accept the 110rk~11op's recorn-

Wo.y"t ~"' \)oo.,\.,,' • s 'l..JSl4RP-M<#ltmJ1 J'1,,d-,,.nhi,. !=f'tJ Sc,,,,, ,:;,.,,,,., c.,,/;f:

9669Z. 11/11/lft>

/)f>M Po,-l"ff .fpflJll.t' I

rr l.U<l.S ..., 'h C.o,.,s~d~yq/,/e ,·., frl"I T '1"1af- r """,) rho: Ot4ff G'111.J1~0 .. wie>..,r.a/ sr,,ff.11rt',,t .,<'.,, fltt VetJt R;11e1. I helve:

ht:i.1 'f!;l(hl'fs;11e '?'ltf'C"'~"''c ...,,.7-1, 'h.e \Jetde> Q.,~c.- 'ooT\., ·,,,

"'"fT•""J o...,_d K.o.';:1a\<1:..j 1->.e srrelz.l-, hef"wee"' f3N.tly t=laf,s c.....J i+dNes htH: ,04...., as we II a.J Q t<tJ.7ak. .,. .. ~ r,o .... t>.e bosc 0 F .Sull;vo.n Lcd~'I? 'to <t-i.-e da ..... Fto.., ""'! 'xpet~~H'" "the Ve•c{~ C.ed-a; .. 1; c/Qr.Si'P1es as <1 w,'JJ a"'ol sc.t.,;c. 1"1\/e,. Glnd one '<l'r.•<.~ clc>:.e(\)es ~ .. st"J ;., t;,,4f- st,.t~. Tr i.s i' ... l'"'f,..,t 'ta

0ff':C-­,'afe

0..,J p1a-t'e< t" civ\' '-'"'1."'" no..tv.-a.1 .-csour~c.s oF whu.\.,

"tl-.e \)e.-ae ~.3->u \s oW'\e,

o..,. q,ueJn'o .. 't "''""e c..0111 .... er ... s """"'' eJ C<<.•os.s +1.e ~\..3ti". Oo.t'oea .,..;,.c "'""'"es cs.re .._.._. rol=t-~t.s '1emes/s to 19" Qvo.J...J a.+- all C.ol fs. ~C"1C.L!~ a.1 • ,,,of' ';'lvdl/// ~ ."/rt!'~ plolok.., ""' "'"""'" .\l'-<"01' c:aS \.N"'t"' ~"' .r1u'r •.J J.,,fJ. '~wouf'J, t"o f"off- 1f- /S u.;u .. I')'. al11> "1'f.I, !""""''1'-1., to ....,,.,t.. ovt- +i.. • ~~"C.•5. flowever cl".,'"J '1-~~ SP""')- of: /q'!J' ....,e •"'o~ .. ~M 01'\t i:t:..l'\<.e oro.,,...o n. """''\eJ \oelb""-l Q..,..,sll' Flo.f.s. ""'""-"

v-.HU ..... ..rc...I.. ..,,.,o,.~ .11.>\o,Jtb..~ ..... 1 ""'"""' yo..:>t .ssuc..I 'w~Tc,. j"f'" +'ip~ .('-e, ... ~-e. T~·) o"'e wCl s '"""'d."' o.t=" o. o"e ih<.\.. f'lo....,JkC'..,..

s,;,cc-""r W-rc. a U.... 1/-L..

f_or_~~ ~ervice Res~onse to ~1_e VanVoorhies' c_~mcn~.

Ille ~laceme~t, consLruction and 111dintenance of water gaps would be ~ons~dered ~n Lhe Manage111ent Plan for the river. see lte111 3 under

• • ~i~er~~~· ~age '.0. The responsible National Forest was not1f1ed or the ex1st1ng hdZrH'd upon receipt of your letter.

-w ......

WWW rizonans 5or q,uaW.y environment

p.o. box 17117 tucson. arizona 85710 I'," :1/ '

Ponn.rJ,. ARIZONANS FOR WATER WITHOUT WASTE

Standiftl' Comlltitl-:

AIR POLLUTION CONSERVATION EDUCATION GRAND CANYON POPULA'J'.ION WATER WILDERNESS WILDLIFE

November 24, 1980

Mr. Donald Bolander, Supervisor Prescott National Forest P. O. Box 2549 Prescott, AZ 86302

Dear Mr. Bolander:

We would 1 i ke these co11111ents to be entered as a part of the record of your public review for the draft EIS and Wild and Scenic River Study.

We feel that your reco11111endations do not give adequate recognition of a valuable, vanishing resource. There are very few stretches of whitewater left in Arizona. Even though the season is short - or intermittent - it does provide unique recreation for a large number of enthusiasts. Protection of the riparian vegetation is essential to the wildlife which occupies that environmental niche .

Since the enlargement of Horseshoe Dam from study by the Central Arizona Water Control Study (Newsletter, August 1980), there are no dam sites under consideration in the Fossil Creek to Sheep Bridgestretch.

We therefore urge the following designations.

1. Recreation designation from Forest Boundary near Paulden to Beasley Flats.

2. Scenic designation for section from Beasley Flats to junction with Fossil Creek.

3. Wild designation from Fossil Creek to Sheep Bridge,

RME:eac

Sincerely yours,

Roy ft.· Emrick Cocha irman

Southern Arizona Envi ronmenta 1 Council p .0. uOX 40966 fur.son, A:--~ £.1 . .111a 85717

Phil Gilman, River Study Coordinator Tonto National Forest P.O. Box 13705 Phoenix, Arizona 85002

Dear Mr. Gilman,

The Southern Arizona Environmental Council (SAEC) has rrviewed initial studies of the Salt, Verde, and San Francisco rivers for wild river status and would like to make the follmdng coITTnents.

In reference to the portions of the Verde River under study, SAEC believes that a combination of alternatives 11 D11 and 11 E11 would provide maximum protection, both \'lild and scenic, for the 88 miles of river ..

SAEC also strongly supports classifying the 22 mile study area of the Salt River to '"ild river status. We therefore urge alternative "B" for the Salt.

The Sdn Franri':>CO River initia-1 studies present a greater dilerruna for the SMC to comment on. SAEC caronot support any of the three proposed alter­natives because the Forest Service has unfortunately failed to study the full length of the river that was congressionally required for study. Once this is accomplished, we feel that the Forest Service vlill be able to propose amost logical alternative: (a) wild rivtr status for the lower San Francisco and the segment of the upper reach between Harden Cienega and the New Mexico border, and (b) recreational status for the stretch between the Forest Service boundary and the cienega.

Overall, we wish to strongly encourages wherever possible. in the future.

reiterate that the Southern Arizona Environme.ntal Council protection of this scarce resource, Arizona's rivers, Please make sure that we receive an) pertinent information

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

tJEtjzriL Arlan M. Colton Pres i dent-e 1 ect, SAEC January 9, 1980

c 138

,------------

TUCSON AUDUBON SOCIETY 30-A N. TUCSON BLVD. TUCSON, AZ 85716 Iiovc;:iber 2J, 1980

!.Tr. Jonald Dolx"1der, Supervisor Prescott ~!atio:i3.l ..?orect P.O. '1ox 2549 ?rcccott, ~~~ 86312

::?lease enter these remar~:i.:G as pc¥rt of your public review

period for t~1e dr~;.ft environr:1e:ital state::ient a:'ld wild n...'1d scenic

ri ve:r study for the }erde ::i ver.

'.:':!"~e Tucson Aa(i."'J.bon Society has carefully cxo..uined yo":J.r drr-:l,ft

inclu.din1::; all alternatives a.."1.d vle do not :::up-port &'1.Y of your

1.1 tsrnat.i vec. .'ie su._pport t:-:;.e following:

1. ;:?_ecrc .-....ti on stutus i~or ri vcr from J.'1 orest boundary near

~aaldcn to DC~sley ilats to total 38,5 miles. Included is the 5.5 miles of private lmd. 2. Scenic desi01-ation for the 22 illile section from Beasley Fl<..1to to the j<ll1ction of Fossil C:rce~:i.:. 3. ·,'lilci desizaation for 27 .5 miles from Fossil Cree~ to Shoep Bridz;c.

;;oYi th<l.t the Centru.l Arizona '.'later Control Study {10.s eliminated frail consideration bot.h the cnlart;e:nent of ~forseshoe Da.:""n and the T:i.ngle Creek/Verde River confluence dam, tne entire 27,5 mile section should be designated wild. rated

·:.re are pleased you have nfi sh and wildlife VLJ.lues as outstandincly re:narn:able but we disar;ree t•ti th you recreational value ro.tinb• '.'/e feel stronsly that 3. river allowin,g v1hite water sports in the desert can only be r:lted as outstandinc;ly re'I!arrl:ablc, In addition, vmtchine wildlife on such a river ca..'1 be rated cw outstandincly rem3.rkable due to the wide variety of Epecies as well as the opportunity to observe a ttlreatened or end1..~gered species.

The '.'lild and Scenic Hi vers A.ct is a uniq_ue allowing federal protection of rivers that flow o.nd private land as well as t!1rouch state land.

form of legislation both though fedenll Yoar preferred

-=7/s--;J-</-3-F

//,E .71.5-

r e~reation

2

altern:itivc, Al~crnativc c, would prevent this special capability fro."1 bein;; utilized, If the private landowners are not informed uroperly, they con easily misconstrue the Act and the intent of the .\ct, If most of the private landowners w.long the river have expressed r.! desire to keep the river as it is today an you say o~ p:1:-;c 67, t."'.c bent v1n.y would be to put it in the ;'fational River ~.)ystcr:1 r ... atl r:.18.intain the sta.tus quo. Perhaps the study team did not do a cood job of educating these fol~-rs or fell dO\m in their public rcl:1tio:'ls. In any case, we cannot support removal of the 5 mil8s ::is ,you a.ur_:ccst.

··;e ·u·c '1lec.sed to have the opportunity to comment on the study draft ~i...'1.d look for\vard to hearing of your procress.

Sincerely,

Linnea Holland

President

\.I\ ~ l~ ~--

.... ~ 0

Yr. D~n~l.~ 3'Jl'r<~~r Pnr~st 311p~rvl~or p .... pscJtt Y'1.ti.-,'1al ?orest FD Dox ') )1~9 P~csc~tt, A~ 0 6jn?

Qn hah~lf ~~ ~4.~Tl~ Fras·r, '1. ~qti nnl ~il 1lerne3~ n..,..., ... :n'<"'.-:i.t-,icri, I ;10111:1 11'.(~ to of er sup;.'ort for r')~ t"·,:. 'lo;r),. :-;.11:p!' 8-S n. '.:n~t of hp. :-h.t..'...or:<J.l ":jild ~ S'":.P'\iC

'.:; i 'V'°'''S '.:)y .St'-'-r •

Tk.r ·l~: 1 c• 1:; t:·~l:v ·t !'e"-:9..!"·kqhlP- rlvf'.r 'n ~!"c SJuth'1J00t a!·yl :-:.::'"JV .-\:.Jn'\'<'~: tf·.; t;"'.'.Xi:'J.1ll:"- '(irotrr,'":iono

:::~\.'C"L: .:iL13T -::u:-;r,:::;.,...ts AP~r'l.'::l.t:lV'.." ".J ;i.rit\.-> ~'-le ·1_".riiticin ::if t}'\e ri•rc~ hc1 0 w ~R~i~ M~11n~~in t~ 1ho h~~d 0f ?o~ses\.->~~ ~~s~rvotr .'1..:: · .. n1,1.

;~ rtl~·0 s11µoort wil~er~~ss ~8sign'1.tton for nll ~Ans II Rreits a4.i', .... r::-nt to ~:V:•- ·1.:.r."e.

·.:~~ orr)ose exr:::f'F::;;iVP vt·~itor developm~nt or lmrr:Jvp;,:i:nt l")f

~ccess ta t~P river.

S inr;F!rPly "- ..... ---

\ ~)- \_~ >-"

Dq_ve ?oremA-'1 3:ART!-~ FIRST 180? 3•m Ct Rio Rancro, NM R7124

FOUR CORi\JERS WlLDER~ESS NORKSl!OP 71S West Apache

l':.irndngton, New Mexico 87401

Forest Supervisor Prescott 0.'ational Forest P. 0, Box 2549 Prescott, /\.?. 8(J:l02

Dear <-;lr:

November 7, l 980

rhc p111·posc or· our grour is to seek mG<L~ures Lo preser·.·e examples of many vo.rictics or natural ecosystems ln sufficient size to pre­serve their genetic resources and funcriortcll character. Kiparian arcJ.s in the Southwest are a pnrtini1arly important h:i.bjtat type. We :.trongly .o;upport protection of these value::; ahmg the Verde Rivci-.

We join other conservation c1·oups in cal ling for i·ecrcation dcsig­n~1.t1on foT the Verde River nea-r P:i.ul<lcn to Beasley Flats (38.5 miles). We ask for scenic <lesignatiun for the 22 m1 le section from Bease-ley Plats to the jtnction of rossil Creek and \Vil<l designation for the 27. 5 mi 1 cs on tu Sheep Bridge be low Tfrng Le Creek .

Sincerely your~) I I

fJ~ i).J. ~:~11, Donavon H. Lyngholm Box 103 Flagstaff, AZ 86002

Forest Junervisor P-rescott :;ational Pore;; t P.O. 'iox 2549 Prescott, Arizr:n~ ~63J?

.t-ilease acce:Jt thGse co".1.·ne lnd 3cenic ~~1ve~ ·3tu4y. A1tcrn':tive D '::;;uld beJt and Jc~~ic q1ver c ~ud.e U-:e sectiori ':.ielow I1antcle Creel{,

KOKOPELI Adventures in Leaming

P. 0. Box 1557, Flagstaff, Arizona 86002 602(774-3778

~ove~ber 19, igso

ts re~Rrdin~ the Ver1e qiver ~IS nnd ~ilJ o~oneli ~ctventures i~ Learning feeJ_s th~t ervc and nrotect the Verde ~iver under 1ila

, 1f this alternqtive were altered to in­fra~ '~able ~ount~in to Jheery 1ridrn. ~u3t

q0serrrch b>r the ·useum of ·1orthern t..rizona on the Verde i.iver (S,.V. , '(.~. J'ohnson, S.N. Aitchison, npO'PUl~ti·•n Structure and 3ocial O~gsnization of Soithwestern qinarian Dir~s.'' ig74; ~~ericgn Zoolor·i3t. il4: 97-108.) sh~ws th~t ri~~riP~ h~bitnt i$ extrem8ly i·1'1orLant to birds and other wildlife. lith only .,JJ3;.0 oi all vegetntion in Arizona considered ri~nrian gnd its k~own i~nor­t::mce, this section fr:.:->n ~qble ·,10unt8in to ')heeri ·~ridrre s~ould he in­c Luded in \l ternative D for -protectio:-i.

Je apnreciate the effort and ae·,th ~f your study and anxiously ?~'sit the li'inal "~I.:i on the Verde ~iver.

31ncr!rely,

Dire~tor

Supervisor, Prescott YFltionnl ?orest, PrE:.scott _\~'.. 136)02 PO 3ox

i':·;::t tne ~:ore~~:::

cl.-os~ifir.---:ior, r1lus :: 'l.irJ sl:eE.:p ~ric .~;0--oe

tte rivi:::r fro'i "S :.i , i:r. "'::.ditior.

PO Box 195, R1mrock, A'!,. 66335 :-_ove!Ilber 24, 1980

_!_''.1/lr:k ?OU for ir:cludir.·; thL:; -:<s T!.'f 8..~er,ded recon::e?"dR.ti8r for clnssiflcatior~ of t'.i.e Ier'.le ~i.iver. ·

Sincerely yours,

/i1c r cc_.:_\ ~_.,./_< Sidney ~Vde ,::;----------.,

C orthe~n P.rizon0 .'\udubor: societ:r)

Alternative Preference Unknown

*Prescott Historical Society

*Uepartment of Transportation, Socio-Economic Analysis Section

*State Mine Inspector

*Agriculture & Horticulture Department

*OEPAD - Hathaway

*Office of Arid Land Studies

*Arizona Natural Heritage Program

Atlantic Richfield Company

Arizona Public Service Co.

U.S. Department of the Interior - Office of the Secretary

U.S. Department of the Interior - Water & Power Resources Service

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers

Department of Energy

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

U.S. Uepartment of Agriculture - Rural Electrification Administration

Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Secretary of Commerce

*Submitted State Clearing House Standard Form - "No Comments on This Project".

-142-

L

AtlantlcRlchfleldCompany 555 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80217 Telephone 303 575 7577

J, R. Mitchell Public Lands Coordinator

November 20, 1980

Forest Supervisor Prescott National Forest P. O. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Verde River

Dear Sir:

Atlantic Richfield Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Forest Service's Draft Envir.onmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding the addition of a segment of the Verde River in Arizona into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Atlantic Richfield Company supports the multiple-use concept for public lands and waterways. Additionally, we support the concept of reasonable environmental protection; and we take the necessary action to assure its protection. We believe that the nation's energy require­ments and environmental concerns are not mutually exclusive. The nation can have an improved energy future by using an effective and responsible multiple-use land management plan on public properties under its jurisdiction. Too often, rigidity rather than flexibility has characterized environmental laws and regulations relating to the use of public lands and waterways. This ridigity has resulted in reducing the additions to the nation•s domestic energy supply, increasing our dependence on foreign oil imports, reducing the stability of the nation's economy and has endangered our national security. We believe that aH efforts should be exerted to find ways in which necessary energy activities may be conducted while providing for reasonable environmental protection and preservation of the scenic values of our rivers.

Industry has shown that petroleum exploration and development activities, environment preservation and other multiple-use needs are a compatible combination. For exampie, other mutliple-use activities have been engaged successfully conducted concurrent with the execution of environmentally sound energy activities on federal and state lands such as the Kenai Moose Range, Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, and wildlife refuges along the Gulf of Mexico.

A small area along the Verde River, within Township Jl-12 South and R~-7 East, has been classified by the Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mmeral Technology as being a "region of high chemical geothermometers11

and contains the Verde Hotsprings. The Verde location is at the inter­section of two major fault systems. This combination suggests that

Forest Supervisor November 20, 1980 Page No. 2

the geothermal potential of this area is promising. The attached maps show the location of these geothermal features. The DEIS should recognize this potential, and an alternative should be developed that would provide access for geothermal exploration along the river system. The outcrop along the river bank frequently affords a unique opportunity to observe the local geology. Therefore, reasonable access to these outcrops would be beneficial to any exploration and development programs related to oil, gas, and geothermal resources which may exist in the area.

Atlantic Richfield Company recommends that the Forest Service provide for reasonable access for energy exploration and appropriate development along the Verde River system in any wild and scenic river alternative that it may select.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments to the Forest Service on this issue. If you need any additional information, please contact us.

Sincerely,

" ".)--;,,. !1"~d Lu ~Le J. R. Mitchell Attachments

Forest Service Response to Atlantic Richfield Company's comment:

The study team has analyzed the geothermal and oil and gas data for the ar~a and decided tt1at the area does not contain sufficient potential for develop1nent of a special alternative that would allow for explorat1on and/or development of the resources.

United States Department of the Interior WATER AND POWER RESOURCES SERVICE

ARIZONA PROJECTS OFFICE

330-150 120. 0

Mr. Donald H, Bolander Forest Supervisor Prescott National Forest P.O. Box 2549 Prescott. Arizona 86302

Dear Mr. Ro lander:

SUITE 2200 VALLEY CENTER 201 NOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85073

We have reviewed the Verde River Draft Environmental Statement and Wild and Scenic River Study report. Our review was primarily with respect to any effects that the proposed action would have on Hater and Power Resources Service projer:ts. Specific comments as to methodology, content, and conclu­sions are also provldecf.

The allocation of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water lo municipalities and Indian tribes along the Verde River would likely he effectuated through water exchanges with the Salt River Project. On August 8, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior made proposed allocations of CAP water for Indian use. These proposed alloeations i~)cluded three tribes whieh could take water from, the upper Verde or its tributaries: Yavapai-Prescott - 500 acre-feet per year; Camp Verde - 1,200 acre feet per year; and Tonto-Apache - 110 acre-feet per year. In addition, the Arizona Water Commission (AWC) in 1977 recommended that the Secretary of the Interior allocate CAP water to fivt:> municipal entities along the upper Verde River, three of which (Prescott, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde) could divert water directly from the Verde River above or in the study area, and two others (Pine and Payson) which could divert water from the East Verde or its tributary Pine Creek. The AWC recommendations arc cur-rcntly being revised, but the October 1980 Department of Hater RcsourceR staff recommendations for these five municipalities increase from an aggregate of 4,533 at:re-feet per year in 1985 to 18,396 acre-feet per yeA.r in 2034. Diversions of Lhis ma.gnitude could adversely affect instrcam flow of the Verde River within the study area.

It is our concern that potential CAP-SRP water exchange.8 not he pred uded or unduly complicated by Verde River designations. The potential impacts on instream flow resulting from Verde River divers ions should be analyzed prior tu designations, since such diversions could affect the river values for which designation is proposed.

®

©

®

®

Specific conunents on the content of the report follow:

~e 17, par. 7--Verde Hot Springs is a popular recreation area and, ns evidenced by the remains of the lodge and spa, has excellent potential for recreational development. Would designation preclude private recreational development at the hot springs, o-r would such development already be precluded under Forest Service land management criteria?

Page 25, 1wr. ]--The most recent data on eagles disagree wlth your figures. We suggest that they be checked. Thirteen nesting territories have been identified in Arizona and New Mexico by Dr. Robert D. Ohmart of Arizona State

University,

The present development in the Verde River study area does not threaten eagles, nor is it expected that development of private lan<ls will impact the eag1es in the future due to the remote location of the nests.

~1§_, __ E_a_r_'._-.?_--Thc referenced report :indicateR thHt Lhe Verde Hot Springs area ha.R potential for direct use of the geothermal resource. Would designa­tion limit or preclude development of this geothermal resource?

Page 55, par. 1--The paragraph on livestock gr;ning indicates that dcsig­n3tion may impose con:=;l ra.inrs on the construction of cattle exclosurel'l necessary for the establishment of young cottonwood trees. What is the nature of these

constraints?

Page.YI, pilr. 4--The primary threcits tu eagles in the study se~ments recreation disturbances and cattle grazlng. Since recreation will increase under the alternatives and grazing will remain the same, the sum of the impacts m1 (:'-<iljles and other endangered species is viewed as being adverse.

Appendix Listing--The discussion on endangered plants is to tall~ in error. One cactus, Enehinocereus trigloch:!::_!~_a;_~s. var. _arizonicus has been listed as endangered (FR 44, No. 208, October 25, 1979) as opposed to your listing it as "proposed endangered." The Endangi-;red Spec.ies Act of 1973, as amended, . requires that all Federal agencies whose act jons may affect an endangered. spec JeR enter into consultation with the U.S. Fhih and Wild1ife Service to determine the effec.t of t'.H: action on the species. There is no indication in your draft EIS t.hat thi.s consultation process has heen c{lrrie<l nut.

The other 18 plants on your list were withdrawn frnm consideration because they did not meet the requirements of the 1979 amendment to t1w Enclangercd Species Act (FR 44, No. 45, March 6, 1979), Two plants are J isted inc-orrcctly: Echeveria orpent ii should read ~.~_o_p_c_~-C!_~_l.!.1E: rusbyi~ ;J.nd Ag:we hel ~ shnuld read ~e Toumeyana vcir. hel]a. Perit_y~_c ~xicola should be listed ;-is ''nominated threatened" as opposed to '1prOposed endangered".

Considerin& the inaccuracies and false impressionR in the discussjon an~ t_he appended 1 ist, these sections should be either entirely rcwritte;: or el 1m1n<>.ted from the (}raft EIS. The final EIS should discuss your consultatLon prnct~ss and the findines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servict• for_!:::~ var. ari!'.onicus.

-""' Ill

Supplemental evaluation for the effects of the proposal on the identified Water and Power and Department of the Interior programs, as well as consid­eration of the above specific comments, would improve the overall quality of the review document.

Sincerely,

OR Edward M. Hallenbeck F Project 11:3.nager

Forest Service R.es_Q_C!_i~S-~ ..!_~ _W.'!.t_~.r~ -~ .E._q_wer Resourct!S s~rvice comrnents.

1. We agree that an exchange of CAP water for Verde River water would have an impact on rnaintainin~ tfle 1~ater flow in the river. Howev1.1r, as stated on pdge 22 of this docu111ent, il would be impossible to determine the actual affects until the allocations are 111ade and an exchange proposed. See Central Arizona ProJect (CAP) section in Appendix u.

2. The permitted acli vi ti es or development of Verde Hot 5pri ngs would be determined by the Management Pl an wl1i ch would be completed if the river is designated into the National 1~ild and Scenic R.ivers System. See section C, Management Plan on page 69. Future development of the Hot Springs would not be prohibited by designation. However, should it be determined through normal Forest Service procedures that development is desirable, srnne restrictions would be necessary to comply with the scenic classification of thdt portion of the river.

3. We have corrected our statement on page 25 of the document to reflect 13 bald eagle nesting territories in Arizona and New Mexico. Thank you for bri ngi ny this error to our attention.

4. Desiynation would noL preclude geothermal development of the Verde Hot Springs. However. developments adjacent to the river channel must be compatible with the Scenic classification. Also, other necessary develop111ents would have to be located outside of ttle river corridor.

5. lJesignation would impose rninor constraints on f~nce locations. New fences would be located out of sight of the river channel when possible.

6. Tt1e Threatened and Endangered Pl ants Li sling in Appendix B has been revised. The section also includes a consensus statement regarding the need for consultation with the U.S. Fish dnd Wildlife Service.

©

®

~>~ '• [~ j

'~~y.v·

Departm<!nt of E1wrgy Washin>;ion, D.C. 20585 : 3 s

Honorable Bob Bergland Secretary of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Mr. Secretary:

A t 26 1980 letter requesting comments

~~i ~h~ s p~~p~~~~o~~~o~~/~~~t~t ~~~! ro~~~~~a ~i~~~a~~r s ;~~~:~~;/~~o:~ne1 ~a designation of two segmen s o e and Scenic Rivers, system.

Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Wild dnd Scenic Rivers Act, we offer the following comments:

The proposed study/draft environmental impa~t stateme~t does no clearl discuss the impact of a 1~1ld ana Scenic River de~ignctio~ on the Childs Power Generating jla~t.loca~e~ther within the study area. In addition, hydroe ec r1c an

1 otential of the area cannot be proper Y ~~:~~;t~~s~~~;~s~ investigations will not be complete for sometime.

The proposed report/draft environmental impact ~ta~~r.~n;/~~~ . f. 11 address the energy resource po en ia

i~~~~:~~h:~~ 1 ~~~B~m~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~:!::mr~~~!~:~~hm~~:m~ ~in:~a~d~~~~~n~{ ~~m-~~~~~ :~uld be subject to reg~lat~ons i~posed by the Wild and Sceni~ River Act. Geother:~ ~~lium, hydroel e~tri c 0~~~~~~r h~~t~~~~a) d:~t~~l!/s ¥~!~. 9

potential ~~~o~~~~~u~n~ the impact on them from designation of the Verde River should be quantified through further study.

't to rovide comments and look forward to We a~preciate thisfoptph~ri~~~/envi~onmental impact statement. rece1 ving a copy o

Since;ely, .r

-~:.< / --; , 1

,/I

Ruth C. Clusen Assistant Secretary

for Environment

'-F~or~e~s~t_S~c'r_vi ce Respon_~_!_Q_~artment .2.:l.~-~)~_s__o1rn11ent~ ·

1. See pa ye o7 for the affects on Child's Power Pl ant.

2. See Appendices C and D.

3. Since there are no firm proposals for mineral development and there was insufficient time to undertake the kind ~f study ~ou propose,,, we had to rely on other agency's help_and data, especially the USGS. We have reviewed their mineral potential data for the area ~nd have amended the various mineral portions of the document accordingly.

CD

®

@

I

l

United States Department of the Interior

In Reply Refer To: ER A0/942

Honorable nob Ber•1land Secretary of Agriculture Washington, D.c. 20520

DcJ.r :'1r. Secretary:

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

OEC \ 0 \980

We are plcas(~(l to provide our comments on the draft enviror111ental statement af\d wil<i and. scenic river study for thH Verde River, Yavapai anrl Gila Counties, Arizona. 'I'he report is cle.irly written and a \·t· racti vely presnnted. However, we question the designa.tion of Alter.native A (No nesiqnation) as the National Economic Development ~lternn.tlve. Econoll\ic (Cost-Benefit) analyses of the fout· proposed alter•Htlves do not appear to conform to the Water Resources council (WRC) Principles and Standards for Planning Water and RelatRrl Land He~ources. Specifically, Table 5 does not identify the peri<;:id of anulysis for the propcsed action costs and benefits list.e<l (Sectinn IV. F of the WR.~ Principles and Standards). Nor have the costs {scenic acguisitlon, rect"eation and transportation facilities <levelapment) been discounted to permit comparison of annual benefits as annual, average, or Year 1 of plan implementation. Furthermore, increased recreation and service generated income can serve as the basis for the Niltional Economic Development Objective (Section V. B. 1 { 2)). Comparison of discounted benefits and costs is appropriate to determine which, if any, of the alternati'Yes actually qualifies as the NED alternativ~. We recommend selection of Alternative D {Designation of all eligible Se(_illlE!:nts).

In :rngard to the Sununary of Criteri"- Satisfactt.on (Table 2, page 33), a determination that the geology of the river etudy segments does not possess "outstandingly remarkable" values should be reconsidered. Enc1osed is a brief and map fur Hackberry Mountain Caldera, a potential National Natural Lanrlmark. Significant geologic featurns are described in tl1e hrief, includinq a variety of volcanic--erosional--deposltional features located in the Verde River canyon.

We encourage efforts to identify cultural resources and the <levelopment of measures designed to prevent <lamage and vandalism to the resourc8S in the ilrea.. This should be done in consultation with the State Historic Pr~servation Officer (Mr. James E. A.yrps, Arizona State Parks Roard).

©

Honorable Bob Bergland

Recreation development proposed in concert with wild and scenic river designation should include conaideration of the problems, needs and solutions presented in the Arizona Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. The Arizona Outdoor Recreation coordinating Commission, Arizona state Parks Board, the appropriate negional Councils of Government, and the Gila and Yavapai Counties Park and Recreation Departments should be afforded th~ opportunity to participate in the planning and development of recreational facilities along the river segments.

Additional comments are enclosed. I hope that these comments will be of assistancP: to you in final \zing the Verde River environmental statement and study report.

Enclosures

f_ore~t_ S_ervice _R_~~~_t._q_~ _µ_l1:!artn!~t -~ ~e_r~~~J!ll'.~~:

1. l)ue to the number of comment~ received regurdiny the NCD alterr1d­tivc, the study team re-analyzed the NED account arHi concluded no true [{[0 alternative exists. See statemenls on payes 39, 40 and 49.

The period ot ar1dlysis fur the proposed aclion CO'!>t.s has been entered as tooLnote )I on Table ~. Thank you tor bringing this oversigf1t to our attention.

2. s.._~e Forest Service response to tfle /\rizonans fur W1 Jd and )cenic Rivers le\..ter in this Appendix section. l)ased on the results of the worksnop, tbe team concluded the river did not µassess "Outstanding Renldrkable'' geoloyic values.

J. Un pages 52 and 10. TtitJ need to ilk~nt1ty and protect cultural resources is discussed. This would be done in consul tat ion with the State Historic Preservation Ofticer.

4. The various recreation grouµs would be contacted duriny thi.: writing of th~ Management Plan.

-""' .....

©

®

®

Mineral Values

Payes 27, 48, and 51. we believe that it is incorrect to state that the land withdrawn for waterpower purposes is not open to mineral cmtry. Public Law 359 of August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 681), permits the mining, development, and utilization of the mineral resources of all public lands withdrawn or reserved for power developinent except those lands " ( 1) which are included in any project operating or being constructen under a U.cense or permit i"lsued under the Federal Power Act or other act ()f Conqrass or (2) which are under examination and survey by a pros;:)ect.ivf.:! licensr~e of the Federal Power Commission# if such prospecti·1e licensee holds C\n uncQ.ncelled preliminary permit issued undel'.' t:1e F'eJeral ?0wer Act authorizing him to conduct such exa::i.ination and 8U":\Tey with respect to such lands and such perm.it has been renewed in the cas~ Df Huch p:rospe(:tive llcensee more than once.''

Furtherrn.ore, it appears that parts of the area h~ing considered for clas:-:;.ificati.::>n in the Wild an1i Scenic Riv-~r System are a:lso valuable for oil, g-:is, ·'lnd sodiU..1'l cn·npounds. ~ lack of clear definition of just what area3 are under consideration for classification, however, makes it diff"icult to b~ specific about 1tlneral val~es.

?age 28 • The Verde H.:it Springs should be shown on a map or their location described iµ the t.~><t. The l2o 0c reservoir temperature supposcrlly reported by the U.S. Geological Survey (no reference citi"ltion is given} is probably very optimistic. Our interpretation of geotherroetric calculations based on the water chemistry suggests that regervoir temperatures do .1ot exceed 90°c and very likely do not exceed 50 c.

Two :nineral properties are mentioned on page 36 but are not precisely locateO on any map or in the text itself. Also, a copper prospect is located in segrne~t A, United States Mines, in sections 27 and 28, T. 1BN., R. 1E.; a quarry in Nl!:1/4 section 31, T. 18 N., R. 2E.; and a gravel pit, SE 1/4 section 31, T. 18N., R. 2E. In river segment B there is another gravel pit, 1/4 section mile north of Beasley Flat in SE 1/4 section 27, T. 13 N., R. 5 E.

It would be helpful to show mineral locations o:n the river segment maps and expand the discuss.ion under L. ~ ~ Geothermal.

Water Resources Development

A potenti~l dam and reservoir site e"ists between Pauldin, Arizona, and Sullivan Lake for a viable diversion of Verde River water for the city of Prescott. Central Arizona Project water would be supplied to downstream. usera with prior water rights through e)(change agreements. Even though the dam and reservoir site appears to be north of the river segments under consideration, impoundment and diversion may affect

down ·,tream flows and should be considered during the Cl.ecision-making proc<.-3S for the Wild and Scenic River designation for the Verde River.

Page IX, Figure 1. Cormnunities and recreation areas identified in Section II. C (pages 7 and a) should be included.

Page 18* Section II. H. Recreation. The RARE II Wilderness Study areas should be shown in a separate figure.

Pages 35 and 36, Section III. n.1. Land. uaes described in the study segment'3 shOuld be included in the figures on page 14 anJ 15.

An analysis of the alternatives would be ea3ier if features discussed in the narrative such aR tributary streams, access roads, and springs had been incl1Jded on the rtver maps provid3d on pages 14, 15, 41, 42, and 43.

~cific cormnants

Page IV, "Preferred Alte:tnative" is misspelled.

5. Tile stu~y L~ai~l uv12rsi1nµllfied the vntl1drawal s1.tuation by Jumpim~ the var1 ous w1thdrawa Is i nlu "wi thdrawa 1 s for waterpower purpose~." We have corrected the draft to show tl1e most restrictive wilhdrdwal the Reclamation Withdrawal.

6. See page 3 for description of study area (1/4 mile on each side of the river).

7. The location of the Verde ~at Springs is shown on the river sei:J­ment 8 map. page 15. Th~ information reyardiny the temperature of ~he Hot Sprin~s was provided by the State of Arizona, Bureau of Geology and Mrneral Technology (.James c. Witcher September 27 1979). ' '

8. The mineral properties have been included on the location maps on pages 14 and 15.

9. Sec Appendices C and D.

10. The rnaµs have been revi sect as you suggested.

®

©

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

P. 0. BDX2711 LOS ANGELES. c.-.LIFORNl..t. lil00!13

SPLED-E

~Ir. Donald H. Bolander, Forest SupPrvisor Uniced States DPpartment of Agri('ul L ur,• Forest Servi("e, PrPscott National Fon' st P.O. Box 2)49 l'resc()tt, Arizona 86302

Dc;ir ~ir. Bolo.r.der:

24 Nove'l-oair l9JU1._..,_,

This is in response to a letter from your office dated 26 August 1~1 8U

which requested review and comments on lht-' "Verde River Draft Lnvlriiil~· meutal St3.tetnenl (DEIS) o.nd Wild & Scenic River Stu<ly. 11

lt is not dear if the Verde River sr>cthm from 'l'ablc 'Mountain Lo 'i<'lng.l.t: Creek is included in the study area. According to statements on pa.P@!9 1 and 37, it is included an<l yet il is not discussed in the <:ilterna.t..l.Ves Page 114 notes th3.t this formerly represented l\lternati ve. E which W¥ subsequently eliminated from consider<ltion because of flood control facilities. Sine<~ the Corps of Engineers is no longer considering this area for a dam site under the Central Arizon3 Water Control Study (CAWCS), lt .:ippears that it should be considered as an alte"rnalive once ne;a i_n and discussed in the DEIS in the same mar.ncr ns the otlwr four alternatives.

fire the average flows as listed on page 21 ~reat enough such th;;it they will maint21in fish and wildlife? Also, can Jncreased recreational be reasonably expected based on these flows? These considerations slrnulrl be discussed in the DEIS.

Discussion should be tlrescntcd in the DEIS as to wlwl type, if a.ny, of rer:reatiomil uses will be pennitted within the designated areas. Dis­cussiuns of restricted uses within wild an(l scPnic areas as well .:is the rPcrf'ntional area should be presented in the DEIS.

Reference is made to Sect Lon J, Fish -ind Wildlife, page L1, last subparG­graph. This should be amended to indicate the position, if any, that has been taken by Arizona Game & l'ish Dcpn.rtment as to where tney would like to consider reestablishing the otter. Rcestablish111t~nl of the otter nnd increased recreational use would he in Uirect conflict, if ti1ey :1rc in the same designated area.

®

Since the area between Segment A and Segment B is not included for designation within the study areA, problems might arise from the discontinuous designation. For example, if inner-tubers or other rccreationa1isLS decide to use the area how will they be kept from entering private lands below Segment: A.? 1t is conceivable that Lre1:>passing could become a problem.

The wild and scenic designation of the 72.5 miles of the Verde River will nave no impact on the r.entral Arizona Water Control Study especially sinc.e the Tangle Creek portion has been cl-rapped from our studiC's.

Th'1Pk "OU t.)r the opportunity to review and conrrncnt on this document.

Sincere_] y,

(}(.,{_;ii: 40} {oRMAN AJrno

fchicf, Ent!,J.ni.:er"Lng Divis ion

F 01',~~ t __ ~yt_"'_ I IC_(~ _1;.c._:_~J1_0.1 ~,i.: -~~ ~'-'_1·-9J'U1~1~1_1.~ -~t ti~.~-'~~~~ C_Ulillll~.

1. Your interµreldtiun of- how the river section between Tdble Mountd 1n ~nu Tangle_Creek was tredtcd in tt1e report is correct. The Janyle Creek ~ect1un was evaludted with Lhc soutl1 portion of r·iver '.)ey111ent Ll.dnd toun~ \.o poss~s~ "lh_itstanding H.emarkdble" values. lt qudli-fll~d fo~ w1ld classif1cdtion, as noted unc.Jer item bun puge 3/. n1e Tangle C'.eck_s~ction.was eli111inated 1ru111 consider·dtion Juriny tile alten1dt1ve tormulat1on process. As stated in your 1etter, the reason for excluding tl1e lanylc Creek ~(~ct1on is no lon:ier valid. Therefore, we have reconsidered addiny ttic river section back into tile Preferr12d Altl'rnJtive. Sl'e paye 44.

2. Tile river has demonstrated over· the yedrs I.hat it can support the c~rrent fish and wildl1te poµulations. l\lso, the (~xisting n'creu­t1on use as wel \ as Lhe projected use coulrl be considered 1 iijht as compared to other rivers I ocdted near µupul utt!d drtJas. For thl'se rea~ons and cons!dcring the.r:-urest Service alredUy rias the rcsponsi­b1 l1ty t.o ma1nta1n fish habitat und the authoriLy to control recrl.:!a­~ion use, l~ wds decided that 1nfun11dtion other than µrovided in Section V, Lf_~c~_.Q_f_ D.!12.lernen_t_al_~. µaq(J 4~ 1-1Js nol needed to supµort the n~comrnendalions in this study.

J. A~ stated.un_page ~Y, a :11JnaQe111e11t µlun ~muld be µrepdred iur the river if iL 1s des1yndted into Ll1e Nat1ondl Wild and Scenic Rivers ~yste111. I\ determinjtion would he made dt U1at L imr as to peri11itttjd recreaLion activities and th(~ necessM·y controh. It is doubtful tl:at 111ure than a frw 1111nor didnyes woulli b..: nece:.isary except for ott-r·udd travel. See page 48.

4. Refor to Arizond l;ame anli rish LJeµart111ent 1s letter under ,'\lterna­tivc 8 ot this appendix section for their µc1<;ition on cs.tab1 ishment of tt1e river otter. Dctenn~niny tile exacL areu fur n:1ntroducin9 L/1c otter along the Verde River is outs1de the scoµe of this sludy.

5. Discontinuous desig11aL1on at tl1l~ river would not credt.~ a tresµdSS µroblem thdl does not alreudy exist. As noted irl the report, river seg1nent A has lirnilcd pot<Jnt ial for floatinu or boat1n0. TIH:se types of act1vlt.il~S are generally restricted to river segment B below Camr Verde ~Jherc trespas::; on privat~ lands is a 111inor problem.

November 18, 1980

Mr. Donald H. Bolander Forest Supervisor

Pl-IOLNIX. ARIZONA e5C36

U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Prescott National Forest P. 0. Box 2549 Prescott, Arizona 86302

Dear Mr. Bolander:

Thank you for sending us a copy of the Verde River Draft Environmental Statement and Wild & Scenic River Study. We have reviewed it thoroughly and believe it is a good study.

Arizona Public Service Company, as you know, is a certificated utility. This means we are le~ally bound to serve all persons who request service and who meet the terms and conditions set up by the Arizona Corporation Commission. This is why we already have several distribution and trans­mission lines crossing the Verde River.

We are concerned about our ability to operate, maintain or replace these facilities with major facilities, when required. It is not clear from the EIS how your proposed designations on the river would affect our abilit~ to do these things. The EIS states that it would be possible to establish a corridor paralleling the boundaries of the classifed river sections, but we are certain it will be necessary to also provide for future river crossings.

We would mos! definitely be interested in participating in the management plan whi~h will be prepared. I presume you will be asking for public input. If so, will you please place the two people listed below on your mailing list for any future notices concerning further actions on this subject:

Ms. Judith Imhoff Arizona Public Service Co. P. 0. Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036

Mr. Donald H. Bolander November 18, 1980 Page 2

Mr. Jesse Thomas 120 N. Marina Street Station 4717 Prescott, Arizona

Again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment to this statement.

REK: RF: cah

Very ~~~ly yo~rs,

; . ("/ / Jtl{{ ,/ R. El Kary, Ph:D., Manoger Environmental Management

Fori.:st Service R.csponse to J\ri zona Public Service~~ cumrnenls.

A portion of the summary of dffccts on page 57 IJdS been rewritten to more specifica1 ly cover your concerns. As requested, we have also added the two people's names to our mailing list.

.... U1 Q

United States Department ol Agr1tul\ure

Rural Electr1f1cat1on Actmm1stra\1on

SU.BJ!<:CT: Draft F.:nvirorune:ntal Impact Statement Verde River, Arizona

TO: Charles R. l!cirtgraves Director, Land Management

P 1 anning U.S. Forest Service

Washington DC 20250

OCT o 2 1980

In rr~:-ipollS<' to your request, our :.;taff has reviewed the n~f..,rt->nced impact statem.e.nt and offers thii! following comments:

1. There should be some discussion regarding the effeLt of river category desig11ilt ion and the potential for a transmission line to cross the river. On page 58 it statPs 1hal uti.lity corrid.o'ts would be permitted irn:m~d1ately adjacent to cl.'lsstfied areas·; however, there is no discussion of a tr.Jnsmission/d1stribution line cros~ing a classified

2. On page 28, it states that the Verde Hot Springs has little potential for electrical power generation, but the area has potential for direct use of the geothermal resource. The potential for direct use of this resource should be discussed in more detail. The economics and feasibility of utilizing the Verde Hot Springs geothermal source shoul<l be e·(amined,

'3. On TAble 3 (page 45) the Forest Service's preferred alternative (Alter. C) would preclude the development of reservoirs on the Verde River in the study area. There should be a discussion reservoir development and potential site identificatton.

4. There is no discussion on water usage or withdrawal by power plants other projects that may be sited above thP designated area.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions, please contact Dennis Rankin at 447-7447.

;i;d /!J~"'£2 CHARLES T. CROWLEY Chief, Environmental ervices P.rRnch Environmental anrl Energy

Requirem~nt <> Uivision

For~_s~ Service _l{~~ponse to B_~rA!_ f_lectrification Adrn1nistrdtions' Comrne_ll_t._s. -------- -----

1. We hdve revised µage 57 to include new trdnsmission lines.

2. Since there dre no ti r111 proposals for yeothermal development and there was in~uff1c11,;!nt time to undertdke ttie kind uf study you µropose, we had to rely on other agency's help and ddta, especially the USGS. We have reviewed the existing data dnd have amer1tfod the various geothermal portions of the document accordingly.

3. See CAWC'.) section in /\ppendix C.

4. See Appendices C and D.

-;. t 'r/

I. ( :160( 7~/' UEf-'ARH<'ENi o~ HOUSING ;u .. ,,-J uRn;\~J r.EvEL0~·Mr"JT I

Ql'"flC!'- 01'" T><[ ·~~·ST••<T 5f,"f.[T~R\

F~lfl (0M ... LJN,TY f'L•'"•IN(, A"fl ["lF;FlDPM! 'IT

Hcnorable BolJ L-2r:JL:..tiJ Secret.:...ry of h-:Jri~ulturP WashinQton, D. C. 20250

~ar Mr. Socretury:

SEP 1 6 1380

'l'his is in reSPJl1Se to j'OUt letlc•r to [_;C'Crt:tar•; f"r:Xm I~~rvlr il"'U dati?<i ,".U<.JUSt 26, 1980 regarding your propo::~ed Verde I\.iV(~! nraft F.nviror"1rnt1l Statcrr,cnt and Wlld and Scenic River StL><ly Rrp,rt, Y,1v,1pai .md G1ln Arizon:i. In acconJ2nce with 24 CFR Part 50 ProtE'Ction 0nd Fnl J.nccnC'ilt of Envi romn0ntnl Quality, D:.:partrncr.t of Hou:.;i:i<J and Ut!.>Jn rx~·vcloµncrit pn.x;cJ1ir."s, p,1rt-icularly Section 50.61 of our Regulati.ons, W'\..' .:.'..~<: forwarding thi:-> r1cx::.rrnr:>nt to Lhe HUD Regioo.:l.l Environmental Officer i.n our Sa.i Lranci~.;CX) r:r·qir~:1r1l Pfl"i.rY'. He will rcviC'W ur.<1 C01ITT1ent as ziwropr i,1tr:, din~ctly to you hv your due date.

1'hank you tor providiny us tht .. : c-1-.:p::xt11nity to YC'.'icw the aL..,ve D.:.<:1ft Enviroo­mcntztl Irr:;: xt St.atE"rnent.

Sircerely,

I; '\,;/ Rcwi'i! C<. y ,\:ir.

Assistant Secretar;-~'

-U'I -

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

215 Fremont Street

San Francisco. Ca. 94105

Project #D-A~S-K61051-AZ

Donald H. Bolander, Forest Supervisor Prescott Nationdl Forest P.O. Box 2549 Prescott, AZ 86302

Dear Mr. Bolander:

The Environrr.ental Protection Agency (EPA) has received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) titled VERDE RIVER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY.

The EPA 1 s comments on the DEIS have been classified as Category L0-1. Definitions of the categories are provided by the enclosure. The classification and the date of the EPA's comments will be· published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our views on proposed Federal Actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. our procedure is to categorize our com­ments on both the environmental consequences of the proposed action and the adequdcy of the environmental statement.

The EPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this DEIS and requests five copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement when available.

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Susan Sakaki, EIS Review Coordinator, at (415) 556-7858.

Sincerely yours,

Qc>l._~ ·e, Director / Jake Ma and Analysis Division

Enclosure

Environ;:'!ental !r.-~.:i..ct of the 1\ction

W--Lack of Objecticns

EPA has no objection to the proposed action as described in the draft impact statc~ent; or susgests only minor changes in the p~oposed ac~ior..

ER--Envirol"'.m:3!ntal Reservations

EPA has reservations concerning the enviro~~ental effects of certai~ aspects of tte 9=09csed actic~. EPA believes that further study of suggesti::d. alte!';"J.~;,i·:<:>s o>. i!lodi::ications is requi~cd and has asked t::.e originating :Ft;.>C.eral agency to reassess the!:;e aspects.

EU--Enviror.!nent<!lly Unsatisfactory

EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatisfactory because of .its potentially han=ul eff'1ct on the enviror_-nent.. Furt~er.:i.o::-e, the l>.;e:-.-::J bcli-eves that the rot~r.-:.ial sa:eguards which r.:ight b.e utilize.=. ::-.ay r.~-:

adec;uately protect the e:wiror:c1-.t: f:=c=:'I haza::C.s a:::ising frc::1 t!"~is a~~.:.:::: .. The Agcr.cy rec:;:-..:::".',-::nds th~t alte::-nativcs to t1-..c action be analyzed !':.:r-:::e= (includi~g the po5sibility of no action at all).

1'.dcouacv of th'!? I~.oact State;.ient

Category 1--Adequate

The draft inpact state~ent adequately sets fort~ the enviro~~ental lltlpact of the profosed p=oject or action as ~ell as alternatives =ea­sonably avai:able to the project or action.

Category 2--Insufficient Inforn.ation

EPA believes that the Craft i=:~act statement does not-contain su=!i­cient infor::i.ation to ass<?ss :uily t....,e env:i!"orM"':l.e:>ltal ir..~act cf t::.e ~=".)­posed project or act.ion. However, frc::\ the infor:.'1a~i.on sub~it':.ed, ~:-.e.

Agency is able to ~ake a pre:liminacy dete!7.'lin.a.tion of t!"l:i i.r..?act. c:: the envi::-cru":lent. EPA has re:c:;:u.::sted that the origir.ator p:-cvide t~.e info:n:i.aticn that was not included in the dra!'t stater..ent.

Category 3--Inadequate

EPA believes that the draft i.":l.pact statement does not adequately ass€ss the enviror'.r.ental L'7lr-~ct o! t~c p:-ofoosed project o= act.icn, or ";.hZ.':. :.:-.c­staten.cnt inadcq;;ately analyzes reasonably availabl-= alter:"lativcs. ::-.e Agency has reqcested r.io!."e ir.for;.:.:ition ar.d analysis concernir.g t:-ie ;~"::c:":.­

tial environmcntoi.l h<lzarCs and has asked that su!:st.ar.tial r(:Vi~icr. ::~ r...::de to ':.~c .i:·•:--.-:t r·t:'!t:·":.:r.t.

If a drnft iw?act s':..:itene!1t is assigned a Catf'S'.:>:-y 3, no ra':.i!':.g made of the project or n:::tion, since a k-il.~is Co;:·!;: ~ot gcne::-all1· 'Which to m~kc such i'l Ct..~tC:eJination.

.... U'I N

3'11

FEDERAL ENCRGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Wi>.SHINGTON 2042\J

Mr. Charles R. Hartgraves Director, Land Management Planning Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20013

Dear Mr. Hartgraves:

In Reply Ref er To;

OEPR-DHRA Federal Project Review Verde River Wild and Scenic River Study

This is in response to your letter of August 26, 1980, requesting comments the draft environmental impact statement and wild and scenic river study the Verde River, Yavapai and Gila Counties, Arizona.

We have reviewed the draft report to determine the effects of the proposal on the Commissjon's responsibilities under the Federal Power Act, Natural cas Act, and other authorities. Such responsibilities relate to the li­censing or non~FeUeral hydroelectric power projects, participation in the plannin~ of Federal water and power resources projects, and the regulation of construction ancl operation of natural gas pipelines.

According to the material furnished, 78 miles of the Verde River designated for the study in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, would be eli­gible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. However, the proposed action in the report would designate only 72.5 miles of the river. Of the 72.5 miles, 33 miles would meet criteria for a recreational river, 22 miles would meet scenic river criteria, and the remaining 17 .5 miles are suited for a wild river classification.

The powerhouse and appurtenant facilities of the existing Childs hydroelec­tric project, licensed by the Commission as Project No. 2069, are located within the scenic area. The Childs powerplant operates with water taken from Fossil Creek, a tributary of the Verde River. Operation of this proj­ect would not be affected by the proposed designation. There are no known potential hydroelectric projects within the study area.

Mr. Charles R. Hartgraves -2-

An examination of the available information indicates that two pipeline companies own pipelines that may cross the Verde River. El Paso Natural Gas Company operates a 20-inch diameter pipeline in Yavapai County that runs from Ash Fork south to Prescott. Southern Union Gas Company oper­ates a small 4-inch diameter pipeline in Yavapai County that runs from Jerome northeastward to Sedona.

T!1ere does not appear to be any oil or gas exploration or development in the project area. Some exploration activity is expected to the south and west of the proposed wild and scenic river designations.

ln conclusion, based nn information contained in the draft environmental st.:.itement and wi1d m1d scenic river study, there does not appear to be any conflict between the recommended proposal and matters pertaining to the Commission's res;_.onsibilities,

7/~k William W. Lindsay, Dlrec) Office of Electr le Power :~~!ulation

... U1 w

: 15 P 3: I 8

Dc-ar Bob,

THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE Wash1nuton, 0.C. 20230

,:p 1981)

--·

Thank you for your lc-tte.r t..:,rnsmitUn.g a copy of t:10 reriort/drdft cnvii..-onj·1cn':al u~:1lac.:t stacL ·wnL on U1c µroµo~ed a::.'tci.ition of a segmc•r1!... of the Verde Rivc:r into the Natlonal ;·;ild und Scenic Rivers Gystc>m. This document has been referred to the OffL:::e of Rcgulatary Policy for coo.i:dinution ot: review and comment.

Ne ,<p_prcciate t_h~ oppor:.:.unity to r0vil'W tbis do..::winnL and \Vill be in touch with you if H~ 11avc• any comments conc12rning it.

With best wish"'s,

Honorable Bob Bergland Secn>tary of Agriculture Washingtm1, D.C. 202SO

Sincl4 Sc-cretary of Commerce

_TC:

St~i~c Mi.h' Inspt:clor

H'~"1:1 705,. \\'e3( \Ving

Ca?itol

_;,_],P _ _<J~ S"<o'ZNo 80-80-0Q.ii_ r,hner.11 Rt",uurccs He:il th

Plweni;{, AZ 8SUD7

F i=10fl..1: 1\r izona S~:;te Clcd 1nghous~ '17CO Wrsr W;;shin~tun Street, Room 5C5 Phc·l''11x, Arlrnn;,i 85007

\;,imc [1 Fi:,h Power Tr~in:..port:it ion l\'ater ·'lg. ;, liort. 'arks ~line Inspector L:i111_1 Arid Lrnds Studies /1.0RLC Centl·r for l'ublic Affairs 1'1c<:;(ott lli~-.torical Society

uf \'orthcYTl Ari:n;!.'.l S3foty

](l·nt'h:i.ble ~:,1tund Rc:~ources

Ru. of Ceoh'f,Y i; l.Jincral Tech. :-::1lt lliver Indian Cle:ninr:lio11>c OEP/Ul:

Ari ::0na

Thi,; vu;~ct is refe,red to you fo: rcv:ew ar.r.! com~:1eJlt. Ple:.i~e evJlu~te as ro :he qut~'>t1r~1. !\her c:Jniplet:on, return THIS FOR;·,~ 4.~JD Oi~E:: Xl:i""OX to theC:a>ri:-igho1Jse t:~) l;:nurl1an 17 \'iORK!~~,J DAYS frorn thp ._'.ate noted 2Uuve. ri~'ose cont<jcr the C!earingh~2;5:5,5Jt;-1fy.;u ni:ed furth<..:r :nki~rnc;t~O'l or <.dd1t1c.ir1al time for n:,;lew.

11iils er rc;,_1;:;1;r:n~ of your agerKy' 0 Yes D i'Jo

/l.dd1t1enal Comrnerm !Use t.ack uf ~:wet. if nt';::•·~'.Jry)

I II \'

APPENDIX G

Index

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Verde River

Wild and Scenic River Study Report Yavapai and Gila Counties, Arizona

A

Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Access,

River Segment 13 14, 17' 29, 36-37' 39-42, 55-56, 58-59, 61

II A II ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

II B II ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• River Segment 17, 19, 29, 36, 39-42, 55-56, 58-59

Action Program for Resolution of Livestock-Riparian Conflicts •••• 23,

13 61 12 66

Agency, Lead •••••••••.•••.••••••••••..••..•..••..••.•••.••.•.•••• 7 Alternatives,

Analysis and Effects On, Air Quality ................................................ 28 Economy ........................................ 49-51, 53-54, 57 Fisheries Habitat •..••..••...•.••.•.•••••.••..•.•••.•••.• 45-48 Future Development •••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••••••••••••• 45

48, 52, 55-57, 59 Geothermal Development ••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••.••••.• 28-48 Grazing ...............................................•.... 45

48, 51, 53, 55, 57-59 Habitat Management of Bald Eagle ................ 48, 52, 57, 59 Historic and Archeolociical Sites .••••.••.••••••..••..•••••. 52 Landownership ••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••• 51, 54-56, 58, 59 Manmade Improvements •••••.•..•.•••••..••.••.••..• 45, 55-57, 59 Minerals ...........................................•....... 45

48, 51, 53, 57, 59 Recreation ••••••••••.•••••.••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••• 46-48

51, 53-55, 57-59 Riparian Habitat ••••••••••••••.••••••.••••••.•••••.. 45, 58, 55 Roadless Areas .......................................... 45, 49 Scenic Qualities •••••••••••••••••••.••.•••••..••••••• 52, 55-56 Timber Management ••••••••••••.••••••••..••••••.••••••.•• 45, 48 Transportation Development ••••••.••••••••..••••••••• 55, 56, 58 Upstream Communities •••••••••••.•.•••••••.•••••••••••••••.• 47 Vegetation •••••••••••.•••.•••.••.••••••••••••••••••••••• 48, 55 Water Quality ...............................•............•. 45

47-48, 52, 55, 57-58 Water Yield ••••.••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••• 45, 47, 52

-154-

Alternatives, (Continued) Analysis and Effects On,

Wildlife Habitat •..••••.•.•••••••••••.••...•.••. 48, 55, 57, 59 W i l d f i re R i s k • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 7

Considered ............................................. iii, 39-45 A, Description ......................................... iii, 40 13, lJescription ......................................... iii, 41 C, Description ••••••••••••••••.•••••••.••••••••••.••••• iii, 42 O, Desc ri pt ion . ........................................ iii , 43 E, Eliminated From Study •••.••••••••••••.••••.•••.•••••• 44, 69

Cost of Implementing •.•••.•••••.•••••.••••••.••••.••.••• 2, 51, 67 Evaluation ........•......................................... 45-66 Formulation Considerations •••••••••.••••••.••.•••••••••.•••• 39-40 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ....... 61-62 Maps ..................................................... iv, 41-43 Preferred •••.•••••••••••••.•••••••••••••.••••••••••• ii-iii, 67-68 Reason for Non-selection •••..••••••••••••••.•••••.•••.•••••• 68-69 Relation Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity •••• 60 Summary of Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which

Cannot be Avoided .•••.••.•.•..•.•..•..•.....•.....•••••..•. 61 Animal Use Month (AUM) •••••••.•••••••.•••••••.•.••..•.••••••••• 45-51 Appendices,

Central Arizona Project ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.• 89 List of Preparers ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 91 Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement •.•••.•• 93 Threatened and Endangered Pl ants ••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••• 84 State and Federally Listed Endangered Species •••••••••••.••••• 80 Status of Flood Control and

Hydroelectric Generating Facilities ••.••••••••••.•.•••.•••• 85 Arizona Public Service •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• vi Arizona State Agencies .......................... v-vi, 64, 68, 73, 79 Arizona, State of,

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology ••••••••••••.••.•••••• 28 Department of Health Services ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• v, 28 Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission ••••••••••••• 64, 68, 73

Army Corps of Engineers .•..•.•...•.•••.•••....•••.•.•...••.••.. v, 85

c

Central Arizona Water Control Study (CAWCS) •••••••• 40, 44, 67, 85-86 Central Arizona Project (CAP) .......... 22, 47, 64, 67, 69, 78, 89-90 Childs Power Plant •••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• 29, 57 Classification Criteria ••••••••••••••••••••••••...•••.••••.•••• 35-37 Congressional Delegates ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••• v Consultation With Others ••••••••••••••••••.••..••.•••••••••••••• v-vi

70-79, F-1 Counties ....................................................... ;, vi

3, 28, 65, 66, 68, 73, 87 County Agencies •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••• v-vi, 65, 70-71 Criteria,

Alternative Selection, •••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37-38 Evaluation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 63-66

Classification, ................................................. 35 An a 1 y s i s • ~ ••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••• 3 ~ - 3 7

-155-

J

Analysis .•.•...•....•.•... Analysis .••. An a 1 ys is •••.

Eli gi bil ity,. •. Evaluation ••

D ......••••..•...••.. 35-37

. ...... 35-37 . .... 35-37

. ...... ..... 31-33 .. •• 33-35

Description of Proposed Action •.....•.•........•............•... ii Designated River Study Segment •.•••..•.••..•••.•••..•.••.•...• ii, 1 Development Proposals ••••.••••••.•••••••••.••.••..•.••.•.•• 44, 48-49 Dispersed Recreation Use Capacity of River Corridor........... 65 Diversions/Dams/Reservoirs.................................... 3

21-22, 40, 55, 57, 60-61, 85-90

E

Eagles •••.•••.•••.•.• 25, 39, 48, 52, '-:J7' b3, 66,

23 80

Endangered Species, An i rna l s ••...•..•. .................... 22-23

25, 32, 38, 48, 52, 57, 63, 66-68, 80-83 Plants •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.........•.•.•...•••.•• 12, 32, 67-68, 85 State and Federa 1 Li st •.•.•.••.•••••••••

Energy lJeve 1 oprnent •.•..•..••..........•.•.. ................. 80-84

• • • • • • • • • • • 6 5 Environmental (.Juality Alternative (EQ} ••••.••...••••••.• 39-40, Environmental Setting,

49-50

Air Quality ................................................•.. 28 Climate ................................ . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . • . • . 10 Cultural ............................................. . .. .... 10-11 Fi sh . .................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-25 Genera 1 Setting ........................ . 7 Historic ............................................. . ...... 10-11 Landownership, Restrictions, and Uses •.•••••••.•.•.•.•..••.. 28-29 Legal Setting ••••••••••••••••••.•••• Minerals and Geothermal •....••....•.•.•. Range •••••••.•••••••••.•••••••••.••••••• Recreation •.•...•...••••..•••••••.•••..•

7 • .•.•.....•••••• 27-28

27 ······· ............ . 17-19

Socio-economic Setting ••.•••••••.•.•.•.•.•••.•••.•.••..•...•.• 7-8 Transportation •.•.•.•••.•...•.•.•.•••.•.•••••...•••.•.•. 12-13, 36 Ve get at i on .............................................. 11-12 , 31 Water •.••..•....•.•.•••...•.•••.•..•••..•.•.•....••. 19, 21-23, 29 Wi 1 dl i fe .................................................... 22-25

EQ Account •.•.•••. .•.•.••••.••.•.•.•. 3 9 ' 49-51

Federal Federal Federal Federal

F

Agencies . •.•...••.•....•..•.•.. ................ v, Energy Regulatory Commission ••••••.

73' 79 3 3

33 Power Commission ••••.••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••••••••• Water Pollution Control Administration •••••••• ~··········

Fish and Wildlife, .........................................•..... 17 32-35, 38-39, 45, 48, 52, 55, 57, 61-63, 66, 68, 22-25,

Species, Special Interest (State) •••••••••••.••••••.•••• 25,

-156-

80-83 81-83

Values ••••• Fish Species •• Flood Control •.••••• Forest Management Act of Forest Management Plan •• Furbearer Population ••••

Game Species ••••• Gauging Station ••

Genera 1 Setting ••••.•.•• Geologic Value •••••••••• Geothermal Development ••

Grazinq, ••••.••• 8,

1976 ••

21, 25,

...... 44'

G

27' 39' 45,

65,

21,

................. 3 2- 34 • •••••••••••• 23, 81-83 67' 69, 75, 78, 85-87

19 •• 19, 40

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 2

51,

23 4

29, 35-36, 45, 55, 57 7

• .•• 32-34 3

24, 28, 48, 57, 59 5

53, 55, 57-59, 65-66 Allotments ••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Guidelines for Evaluating Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Area .••..•.•.•.•......•.•.•.•.•••••.••...•.•.•.••••..•• 32

Historic and Cultural Hydroelectric Power ••

Values.

Index ..................... . Inflow Design Floods ••••••• Instream Flow Requirements ••• Introduction ••••••.•••..•...•

H

Irreversible Commitment of Resources. Issues and Concerns •.••.•••••••••••••

L

Land,

28-29, 44, 55, 60,

••• 32-34 v

65, C-1

• ••••••••••••••• 154-161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 • ••••• 34-35, 47, 69

1 . ......... 61-62

..ii, 3-5

Private ....................................................... 7-8

Landform ...•..••••••. Legal Setting •••••••• Legislative Intent of Act •••• List of Preparers ••••••••••••••• Livestock-Riparian Conflicts •••• Location,

De script ion •• Map • ••••••••••••••••••••

13, 19, 51, 54-56,

28-29, 58-64,

35, 37-38, 40-43 66-69' 72' 75-77

••••••• 31, 33 7 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 ••••••••••••••• 12, 23, 66

-157-

••• 2-3, 7 .ix, 14-15

l

r

M

f'1anagernent Plan ••..•..•..••......•.•......•.••.•..••..••.•.••...• 51 58, 68, 69-70

Maps, Alternative 11 8 11

•• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 41 Alternative 11 C11

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• iv, 42 Alternative 11 U11

•••••• .......................................... 43 Preferred Alternative ......................................... iv General Location ••..•...•...•....•..•..•.••..•...•.•......•.•. ix River Segment 11 A11

•• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14 R.i ver Segn1ent 11 8 11

.............................................. 15 Maricopa Audubon Society •..••••..•••.•.••.•.••••......•..••..• 25, 80 Meaningful Experience Opportunity •.....•.•..•..••.•..•..•..•.•. 32-34 Media Contacts ................................................. 71-72 Meetings ............................................... vi, 31, 71-72 Minerals, ........................................................ 4

7-8, 27-28, 39-40, 45, 48, 51, 53-55, 57, 59, 64-65, 68 Leasing ................................................. 4, 54, 68

Mining Claims, Patent of..................................................... 4 Regulation of ................................................. 4

Model Used to Determine Economic Effects of Alternatives •..•••.•. 49

N

National Economic Oevelopment Alternative (NED) •••••.•..•.• 39-40, 49 Natural Waterforms ...... ..................................... . 31, 33 NEO Account .........•....•.......... .............•.•••...• 39, 49, 51 News Media •........•.•.•.••...•••.........•....•••.•...•••••••• 71-72 Northern Arizona Counci 1 of Governments ••••.••••..•••••.••.••• vi, 23

0

Off-Road Vehicle Travel ••..•.•••.••.••••••••.••.•••••••....•••• 46-48 54, 58, 64, 68, 70

Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Fish and Wildlife ••••...•••••.•...•.••.•••.....•.•••....••.• 33-34

40-42, 57, 59, 61, 64, 68, 72 Historic and Cultural •••.•.•..•.•.•.•.••••••••.•.•.•...••••• 32-34

40-42, 57, 59, 64, 70, 72 Scenic .....................................................•.. 31

33-34, 40-42, 57, 59, 64, 70, 72

p

Ph el p s Dodge ...............................................•.. vi , 8 Photos,

Fishing Along Verde River ••••.••••••••.•.••••••••.•••••.•••.•• 18 General View of Verde River Near Table Mountain ••.••..•.•..•.• Ranch Headquarters in Segment "A" of Verde River ..•......••... Spring River Running at 4,000 cfs ............................ . Verde River, A Water Source for Livestock ••.••.•••.•••••••••••

-158-

6 30 20 26

Verde Verde

River at Confluence of East Verde River ••••• River Nesting Sites for the Bald Eagle ••••••

Verde Valley Railroad •••••.•.••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••.••.•

9 24 16

Photos, (Continued) Verde Valley Railroad Crosses Verde River ••••••

Prescott City Council •••••••• Public Comment (Summary) ••••• Public Comments on Draft Environmental Statement and

Forest Service Response •••••• Public Involvement ••••••••••••••

Purpose of Report ••••••••••••••••••••

Railroad •••••••••••••••••• Ranching Interest, Local •• Range, See Grazing Range Improvements •••••••••• Ranger Districts Involved ••

R

RARE I I •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Reason for Non-selection ••••••••••••••• Recreation, .............................. .

17-19, 32-34, 38-39, 41-42, 46-49, 51, 53-55,

• • • • • • • • • 30 ..65, 68, 73

.. .• 72-79

.93-153

v-vi , i i

71-79 2

••• 11 ' 13 65

•• 27, 57 . •• 7' 40

• •• 19' 49 . .•. 68-69

57-59, 60, 68, 69-70,

8 63-66 75-78

. • • . • • • . • • . • • . • 6 5 Dispersed Use Capacity of River Corridor •• Information Management System (RIM) ••••••••••••••••••

Sites ••• Potential River,

Development Defined •••••••••

46 58 35

Value •••••••••••••••••• . .................... 32-34 Visitor Day ( RVD ) ••••••••••••••••••••

Regional Development Account •••••••••••• Reservoirs, See Diversions/Dams Responsible Federal Agency •••••••• Responsible Official •••••••••••••• River,

Otter ••••••••••• Running, floating ••••

..46,

. . i ,

••• 22' ••• 1 7'

Definition ••• Excluded

Scenic, Section Segment A,

From Study ............................ 41, 44;

Location •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map ••••••.•••...•.•..•.••••.••..•.••.••••••••••••••.•.•• ix,

Segment B, Location •• ................................................. Map ••••••••••••••••••.••.••••••.••.•.•..•.••••••..•..•.• ix,

Wild, Definition •••••••.•••••••••.••• Roadless Areas ••••••• . .......... -· . ....... 15' RPA Recommended Program ••••••••••••••••

-159-

51 50

67 27

64 57 35 69

2 14

2 15 35 19 49

I

J

s

Salt River Project (SRP) .••.•...•......•..••..•......•.•••••..••• ii vi, 3, 22, 44, 67, 78, 88-90

Sanitation ....................................................... v 41-42, 56, 58, 60-61, 65, 69

Scenic Easement, Cost of Acquiring •..•.••..•••...••.....•..•..•...•..••.•...... 51 Defined .......................... .......................... 38, 56 Effects on Private Land •.••.••.••••...•..•...•............•.• 38

49, 51-52, 56, 58-62, 64, 66-70 Social Well-Being Account .••.••••••.••....•••.•..••••.•..•..•• 50, 54 Southern Environmental Council •••....•...•..•...•..••.....•..••.. 73 Statewide User Groups •.•••..••.•..••..•..•......•..••.....•• v, 7, 71 Study Area,

Additional •................................................... 1 LJesi gnated.................................................... 1 t~ap • • . . • • . . • • . • • . • . . • . . . • . . • . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . • . • . . • . . i v

Sum1nary Report................................................... ii

T

Tables, Alternative Effects on National Economic Development •.•..•...• 51 Alternative Effects on Regional Development. ..•••.••...•.•..•• 53 Changes in Recreational Use in 1990 By Alternatives •.......•.• 46 Comparisons of Uses From Alternatives in 1990 .••••..•...•..••• 45 Effects on Components of EQ Account........................... 52 Evaluation of Alternatives •...•..••.••..••.•••••..••••••.••.•. 63 Residence of Individual Respondents by Alternative Preference. 74 Social Well-Being .••.••.••..•...•..••.••..••..•..•..•......••• 54 Summary of Respondents by Alternative Preference ..••..•••..•.• 73 Summary of Criteria Satisfaction ••.••••••••••.••..•..•..••..•• 33 Summary of Landownership, Restrictions, and Uses ••.••••••...•• 29 U.S. Geological Survey Gauging Stations •••••••••.•.•••.••••••• 21

Temperature, lJaily ......... ...................................... 10 Timber Production •.•••..•••••.•...••.••..•..••.•.......•.• 12, 45, 48 Tonto-Apache Tribe ............................................... 89 Tourism ........................................................ 8, 39 Trade, Retail and Wholesale .•..•..•...•..••.....•..••.••..•..•... 8 Transportation, .................................................. ix

12-15, 36-37, 40-42, 51, 55-56, 58-62, 64, 77 System Development Costs ••••••••..•••.•.•••.••.••....•..••..•• Sl

u

U.S. Geological Survey Water lJata ......................... 19, 21, 45 U.S. Geological Survey-Potential Water Developments ••.••.•..... 87-88 Utility,

Companies..................................................... 7 Corridors .........................................•........ 56, 58

-160-

v

Vegetation, Description. Riparian •••.

............................... . 11-12 e e e e e e e e e e e • e e e e e e e e e e e e • e e e e e e e e e e e e e I I I I • I e I e I I I

22-23, 25, 39-40, 45, 64, 12 66

Verde Hot Springs ••••.•..••.••••••.••••••.••••.•..•••..•.• 17, 18, 28 Visual Management System •.•••••..••••••••••••••.•.••••.••...••••• 33 Visual Qualities, See Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Scenic

w

Water, -Power Withdrawals •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality ••••• . ..................... .

23, 33, Quantity ••••

Resource Council ........................................ 39,

Water and Power Resources Service Wild and Scenic Rivers Act •...•••• Wildlife, See Fish and Wildlife

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 1 '

Wildfire Risk •...........•................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Workshops.~ ...................................................... vi

31, 71-72

y

Yavapai-Apache Tribe ....................................... . 89 89 Yavapai-Prescott Tribe •••••.••..•••••••••••••••••••••..•.•..

z

Zani ng ............................•..

.ZU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981-777-08313 -161-

. ..................... . i i i 66-67, 70 40, 59-60, 64,